[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.RES. 755, IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
=======================================================================
MEETING
of the
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2019
----------
Available via http://govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES--H. RES. 755, IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN
TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
H. RES. 755, IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
=======================================================================
MEETING
of the
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2019
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-438 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON RULES
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, Chairman
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida TOM COLE, Oklahoma
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
NORMA J. TORRES, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida
MARK DESAULNIER, California
DON SISSON, Staff Director
KELLY DIXON CHAMBERS, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida, Chairman
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
------
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
NORMA J. TORRES, California, Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania ROB WOODALL, Georgia
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
------
Subcommittee on Expedited Procedures
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chair
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
NORMA J. TORRES, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MARK DESAULNIER, California
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
December 17, 2019
Opening Statements:
Page
Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules. 1
Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules...... 4
Witness Testimony:
Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland and Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.................................................. 6
Hon. Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia and Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.................................................. 10
Questions and Additional Testimony:
Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules. 14
Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules...... 31
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 72
Hon. Rob Woodall, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia................................................. 93
Hon. Norma Torres, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 102
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas......................................... 107
Hon. Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 115
Hon. Debbie Lesko, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 145
Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 168
Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 180
Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 189
Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 191
Committee Mark-up:
Mark-up of resolution providing for consideration of H. Res.
755........................................................ 210
Notice of Action............................................. 222
H. Res. 767.................................................. 223
H. Rept. 116-355--Report to accompany H. Res. 767............ 226
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Letter to Chairman Nadler dated December 10, 2019............ 16
Document entitled ``How we resist Trump and his extreme
agenda'' by Hon. Jerry Nadler dated November 16, 2016...... 32
Memo from then-Chairman David Dreier re: ``Minority Hearing
Day'' dated June 8, 1999................................... 44
Letter from Chairman McGovern to Ranking Republican Cole
dated December 16, 2019.................................... 47
Article by Andrew E. Kramer and Kenneth P. Vogel, New York
Times, entitled ``Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early
August, Undermining Trump Defense'' dated October 23, 2019. 65
Excerpt from the Committee on the Judiciary's transcript of
mark-up of H. Res. 755..................................... 70
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation declassified by order of
the President, dated July 25, 2019......................... 76
Statement from Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, National
Security Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, dated
November 19, 2019.......................................... 112
Senate Oath for Impeachment Trial............................ 116
700+ Historians' Statement on the Impeachment of President
Trump...................................................... 118
Editorial by USA Today entitled ``Impeach President Trump''
dated December 11, 2019.................................... 122
Article by Scott S. Barker, Colorado Lawyer, entitled ``An
Overview of Presidential Impeachment'' dated August/
September 2018............................................. 126
Opinion Editorial by Doug Collins, ranking member of the
House Judiciary Committee, entitled ``Articles establish
nothing impeachable and allege no crime''.................. 134
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Lesko, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona......................... 146
Letter from President Donald J. Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi
dated December 17, 2019.................................... 149
Article by Natasha Bertrand and Andrew Desiderio, POLITICO,
entitled ``Ukraine didn't interfere in 2016, Trump
officials testified'' dated November 8, 2019............... 162
Letter to Congress from 500+ Legal Scholars.................. 172
Letter from Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi
dated October 17, 2019..................................... 199
Letter to Chairs Schiff, Engel, and Maloney dated October 18,
2019....................................................... 201
Letter from Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, to Chairman Adam Schiff
and Ranking Member Devin Nunes dated October 22, 2019...... 208
Letter from Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi
dated November 4, 2019..................................... 209
H. RES. 755, IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:15 a.m., in Room
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. James P. McGovern [chairman of the
committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McGovern, Hastings, Torres,
Perlmutter, Raskin, Scanlon, Morelle, Shalala, DeSaulnier,
Cole, Woodall, Burgess, and Lesko.
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Chairman. The Rules Committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS AND CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
It is unfortunate that we have to be here today, but the
actions of the President of the United States make that
necessary. President Trump withheld congressionally approved
aid to Ukraine, our partner under siege, not to fight
corruption but to extract a personal political favor.
President Trump refused to meet with Ukraine's President in
the White House until he completed this scheme, all the while
leaders in Russia, the very nation holding a large part of
Ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our
elections in 2016, had yet another meeting in the Oval Office
just last week.
These are not my opinions. These are uncontested facts. We
have listened to the hearings. We have read the transcripts,
and it is clear that this President acted in a way that not
only violates the public trust; he jeopardized our national
security, and he undermined our democracy. He acted in a way
that rises to the level of impeachment.
That is why we are considering H. Res. 755 today, a
resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the
United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress has
no other choice but to act with urgency.
You know, when I think back to the Founders of this Nation,
they were particularly concerned about foreign interference in
our elections. They understood that allowing outside forces to
decide American campaigns would cause the fundamentals of our
democracy to crumble, but the evidence shows that is exactly
what President Trump did, not only allowed but solicited
foreign interference, all to help him win his reelection
campaign.
What shocks me, quite frankly, about so many of my
Republican friends is their inability to acknowledge that
President Trump acted improperly. It seems the only Republican
Members willing to admit the President did something wrong have
either already retired or announced plans they intend to retire
at the end of this Congress.
I get it. It is hard to criticize a President of your own
party, but that shouldn't matter here. I admired President
Clinton when he was President of the United States, and I still
do today but when this House impeached him, which I didn't
agree with, I went to the House floor, and I said I thought
what President Clinton did was wrong, because moments like this
call for more than just reflexive partisanship. They require
honesty, and they require courage. Are any Republicans today
willing to muster the strength to say that what this President
did was wrong?
Now let me say again what happened here. The President
withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country
under siege to abstract a personal political favor. He did not
do this as a matter of U.S. policy. He did this for his own
benefit. That is wrong; and if that is not impeachable conduct,
I don't know what is.
Now, I have heard some on the other side suggest that this
process is about overturning an election. That is absurd. This
is about President Trump using his office to try and rig the
next election. Now think about that. We like to say that every
vote matters, that every vote counts. We learned in grade
school about all the people who fought and died for that right.
It is a sacred thing.
You know, I remember as a middle schooler, in 1972, leaving
leaflets at the homes of potential voters, urging them to
support George McGovern for President, no relation by the way.
I thought he had a great last name, and he was dedicated to
ending the war in Vietnam and feeding the hungry and helping
the poor. I remember even to this day what an honor it was to
ask people to support him, even though I was too young to vote
myself, and what a privilege it was later in life to ask voters
for their support in my own campaigns.
Now I have been part of winning campaigns, and I have been
part of losing ones, too. People I thought would be great
Presidents, like Senator McGovern, were never given that
chance. Make no mistake: I was disappointed, but I accepted it.
I would take losing an election any day of the week when the
American people render that verdict, but I will never--and I
mean I will never--be okay if other nations decide our leaders
for us. And the President of the United States is rolling out
the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference.
To not act would set a dangerous precedent, not just for
this President but for every future President. The evidence is
as clear as it is overwhelming. And this administration hasn't
handed over a single subpoenaed document to refute it, not one.
Now it is up to us to decide whether the United States is still
a Nation where no one is above the law or whether America is
allowed to become a land run by those who act more like kings
or queens, as if the law doesn't apply to them.
You know, it is no secret that President Trump has a
penchant for cozying up to notorious dictators. He has
complimented Vladimir Putin, congratulated Rodrigo Duterte,
lauded President Erdogan, fell in love with Kim Jong Un. I can
go on and on and on, and maybe the President is jealous that
they can do whatever they want. These dictators are the
antithesis of what America stands for, and every day we let
President Trump act like the law doesn't apply to him, we move
a little closer to them.
Now, Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention
and said: The Founders have created a Republic if you can keep
it. There are no guarantees. Our system of government will
persist only if we fight for it.
And the simple question for us is this: Are we willing to
fight for this democracy? I expect we will have a lot of debate
here today. I hope everyone searches their conscience.
To my Republican friends, imagine any Democratic President
sitting in the Oval Office. President Obama, President Clinton,
any of them, would your answer here still be the same? No one
should be allowed to use the powers of the Presidency to
undermine our elections or cheat in a campaign, no matter who
it is and no matter what their party.
We all took an oath not to defend a political party but to
uphold the Constitution of the United States. History is
testing us. We can't control what the Senate will do, but each
of us can decide whether we pass that test, whether we defend
our democracy, and whether we uphold our oath.
Today, we will put a process in place to consider these
articles on the House floor. And when I cast my vote in favor,
my conscience will be clear.
Before I turn to our ranking member, I want to first
recognize his leadership on this committee. We take up a lot of
contentious matters up here in the Rules Committee and often we
are on different sides of many issues, but he leads with
integrity, and he cares deeply about this House. There will be
passionate disagreement here today, but I have no doubt we will
continue working together in the future and side by side on
this committee to better this institution.
And let me also state for the record that Chairman Nadler
is unable to be here today because of a family medical
emergency, and we are all keeping him and his family in our
thoughts and prayers.
Testifying instead today is Congressman Raskin. He is not
only a valued member of this committee but also the Judiciary
and Oversight Committees. In addition, Congressman Raskin is a
constitutional law professor. He has a very comprehensive and
unique understanding of what we are talking about here today,
and I appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning.
I also want to welcome back Ranking Member Collins, a
former member of the Rules Committee, someone who I don't often
agree with but someone who I respect nonetheless and appreciate
all of his contributions to this institution.
Having said that, I now will turn this over to our ranking
member, Mr. Cole, for any remarks he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM COLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by reciprocating personal and professional
respect for you and the other members of this committee as well
because I do think very highly of each and every person on this
committee and particularly of you, Mr. Chairman.
But this is a day where we are going to disagree and
disagree very strongly. It is, as you referenced, Mr. Chairman,
a sad day, a sad day for me personally, for the Rules
Committee, for the institution of the House, and for the
American people.
We are meeting today on a rule for considering Articles of
Impeachment against a sitting President of the United States on
the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not the
result of a fair process and certainly not a bipartisan one.
Sadly, the Democrats' impeachment inquiry has been flawed and
partisan from day one. So I guess it should come as no surprise
that the Democrats' preordained the outcome is also flawed and
partisan.
Seven weeks ago when this committee met to consider a
resolution to guide the process for the Democrats'
unprecedented impeachment inquiry, I warned that they were
treading on shaky ground with their unfair and close process.
Reflecting on how things have played out since then reaffirms
my earlier judgment that this flawed process was crafted to
ensure a partisan, preordained result. Unfortunately, this
entire process was tarnished further by the speed with which my
Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary and Intelligence
Committees have rushed to deliver their predetermined judgment,
to impeach the President for something, anything, whether there
are stones left unturned or whether where there is any proof at
all.
There is no way this can or should be viewed as legitimate,
certainly not by Republicans whose minority rights have been
trampled on every step on the way and certainly not by the
American people observing this disastrous political show scene
by scene.
As I have said before, unlike any impeachment proceedings
in modern history, the partisan process prescribed and pursued
by Democrats is truly unprecedented. And it contradicts Speaker
Pelosi's own words. Back in March of this year she said, quote:
Impeachment is so divisive to the country that, unless there is
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I
don't think we should go down that path because it divides the
country, unquote.
The key word in that quote is ``bipartisan.''
Indeed, during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the
process for even opening the inquiry was considered on a
bipartisan basis. Back then, both sides treated the process
with the seriousness it deserved, negotiating and finding
agreement across the aisle to ensure fairness and due process
for all involved in the inquiries. But that is not the case
today. Instead, Democrats have pushed forward using a partisan
process that limited the President's right to due process,
prevented the minority from exercising their rights, and
charged ahead toward a vote to impeach the President, whether
the evidence is there or not.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by any of this.
Democrats in the House have been pushing to impeach President
Trump since before he was even sworn in. In December of 2017,
when a current Democratic member of the House forced a vote on
an impeachment resolution, 58 Democrats voted then to impeach
the President Trump, even without an investigation and without
any evidence to point to. And those numbers have only grown
since then to the point where the majority is now pushing
forward with a final vote on impeachment, heedless of where it
takes the country and regardless of whether they have proven
their case.
Mr. Chairman, it didn't have to be this way. When she
became entrusted with the gavel over the House this Congress,
Speaker Pelosi assured us all that she would not move forward
with impeachment unless it was bipartisan and unless there was
a clear consensus in the country. Neither of those two
commissions are present here.
Indeed, the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls on
impeachment shows the country evenly split, with 46.5 percent
of Americans in favor of impeachment and 46.5 percent against.
That is hardly what I would call a national consensus in favor
of impeaching President Trump. When half of Americans are
telling you that what you are doing is wrong, you should
listen.
I think this is especially the case, given how close we are
to the next election. In 11 months, the American people are
going to vote on the next President of the United States. Why
then are we plunging the country into this kind of turmoil and
this kind of trauma now when the voters themselves will resolve
the matter one way or another less than a year from today? All
it does achieve is make the political polarization and
divisions in our country even worse. That makes no sense to me.
Though we may be moving forward with a vote, I certainly do
not believe the majority has proven its case or convinced the
American people that the weeks of wasted time was worth it. And
personally I believe the articles themselves are unwarranted.
The majority is seeking to remove the President over something
that didn't happen: the alleged quid pro quo with the President
of Ukraine. Never mind that the foreign aid went to the Ukraine
as it was supposed to and never mind that no investigations
were required for the Ukraine to get the aid and never mind
that the two participants in the famous conversation, President
Trump and President Zelensky, said nothing inappropriate
happened.
According to the majority, however, a quid pro quo that
never existed is an appropriate basis for removing the
President from office, and yet even though the majority has not
proven its case and even though there is no basis for
impeachment, they are still moving forward today.
What I cannot discern is a legitimate reason why, why the
majority is moving forward when the process is so partisan, why
they are moving forward when the American people are not with
them, why they are moving forward when they haven't proven
their case, and why they are moving forward when there is no
basis for impeachment. Why? Why put the country through all
this?
It makes even less sense to me when we consider the
realities of the United States Senate. We already know that the
votes to convict and remove the President from office simply
aren't there. Bluntly put, this is a matter that Congress as a
whole cannot resolve on its own. Yet the majority is plunging
forward, regardless of the needless drama or the damage to the
institution and to the country, knowing full well that the end
of the day the President will remain in office. And for what?
Scoring political points with their party's base?
Again, Mr. Chairman, this does not make any sense to me. We
didn't need to go this route. We didn't need to push forward on
a partisan impeachment process that had only one possible
result, but we are here anyway, regardless of the damage it
does to the institution and regardless of how much further it
divides the country.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day
for all of us, but it is especially sad for me, knowing that
this day was inevitable, preordained from the start. No matter
what happened, no matter where the investigations led, the
Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was pushing
since the day they took over to impeach President Trump. The
facts don't warrant that, Mr. Chairman, and the process is
unworthy of the outcome. The President should not be impeached,
and I urge all Members, both here in the Rules Committee and
tomorrow on the House floor, to vote no.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And I appreciate your comments. Obviously, we have strong
disagreements.
And just one technical point I would like to make. None of
us in this House have had an opportunity to vote on
impeachment. The resolution that the gentleman refers to some
of us opposed tabling because we thought it should go to
committee where it could be appropriately evaluated, and that
is what this process has achieved. The relevant committees have
done their work and investigated the claims of wrongdoing by
the President. And now the Judiciary Committee has recommended
Articles of Impeachment. The first time anybody in this House
will get an opportunity to vote on impeachment will be
tomorrow.
Having said that, I want to welcome both of our witnesses.
And, Mr. Raskin, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMIE RASKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman McGovern. Good morning, Ranking
Member Cole. Good morning to all of our distinguished
colleagues on the House Rules Committee. And good morning to my
friend, Mr. Collins.
It is my solemn responsibility this morning to present for
your consideration House Resolution 755 and the accompanying
House Judiciary Committee report concerning the impeachment of
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high
crimes and misdemeanors committed against the people of the
United States.
I am appearing, as you said, Mr. Chairman, this morning in
place of Chairman Nadler, who could not be with us. I am sure I
speak for all the members of both the Judiciary Committee and
the Rules Committee in sending strength, love, and prayers to
Chairman Nadler's wife, Joyce, and all of our hopes for a
speedy recovery.
The Judiciary Committee, along with the other committees,
which investigated President Trump's offenses--the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform--bring these
articles with a solemn purpose and a heavy heart but in active
faith with the constitutional oaths of office that we have all
sworn.
The investigating committees conducted 100 hours of
deposition testimony with 17 sworn witnesses and 30 hours of
public testimony with 12 witnesses. The Judiciary Committee is
now in possession of overwhelming evidence that the President
of the United States has committed high crimes and
misdemeanors, violated his constitutional oath to faithfully
execute the Office of the President of the United States and to
the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and violated his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully
executed.
We present two Articles of Impeachment supported by
hundreds of pages of detailed evidence and meticulous analysis.
The evidence and analysis lead inescapably to the conclusions
embodied in these Articles of Impeachment.
First, President Trump has committed the high crime and
misdemeanor of abuse of office. He abused the awesome powers of
the Presidency by using his office to corruptly demand that a
foreign government interfere in our American Presidential
election in order to promote his own political campaign in
2020. He corruptly conditioned the release of $391 million in
foreign security assistance that he held back from the
Ukrainian Government, along with a long hoped-for White House
Presidential meeting. He conditioned those on Ukrainian
President Zelensky's agreement to go public with two
statements. One statement was announcing a criminal
investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading
Presidential candidate and rival of the President. The other
statement was announcing an investigation that would
rehabilitate a discredited pro-Russian conspiracy theory by
showing that it was Ukraine and not Putin's Russia that tried
to disrupt the last American Presidential election in 2016.
This scheme to corrupt an American Presidential election
subordinated the democratic sovereignty of the people to the
private political ambitions of one man: the President himself.
It immediately placed the national security interests of the
United States of America at risk, and it continues to embroil
the Nation and our government in conflict.
Second, after this corrupt scheme came to light and
numerous public servants with knowledge of key events surfaced
to testify in our committee investigations about the
President's actions, President Trump directed the wholesale,
categorical, and indiscriminate obstruction of this
congressional impeachment investigation. He did so by ordering
a blockade of administration witnesses, by trying to muzzle and
intimidate witnesses who did come forward, and by refusing to
produce even a single subpoenaed document.
In the history of the Republic, no President other than
this one has ever claimed and exercised the unilateral right
and power to thwart and defeat a House Presidential impeachment
inquiry. Yet that would have been the final and unavoidable
result of the President's outrageous defiance of Congress, had
17 brave witnesses not come forward in the face of the
President's threats and testified about the Ukraine shakedown
and its scandalous effects on our national security, our
democracy, and our constitutional system of government.
But make no mistake. While this investigation was saved by
the courage and old-fashioned patriotism of witnesses like
Ambassador William Taylor, Ambassador Mari Yovanovitch,
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, and Dr. Fiona Hill, the
President's aggressive and unprecedented resistance to
congressional subpoenas for witnesses and documents is
blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. If accepted and
normalized now, it will undermine perhaps for all time the
congressional impeachment power itself, which is the people's
last instrument of constitutional self-defense against a
sitting President who behaves like a King and tramples the rule
of law. By obstructing an impeachment inquiry with impunity,
the President will have the power to actively destroy the
people's final check on his own corrupt misconduct and abuse of
power.
The Framers insisted that we have impeachment in the
Constitution precisely to protect ourselves from a President
becoming a tyrant and a despot, and we cannot and we will not
allow the impeachment power itself to be destroyed.
These articles charge that President Trump has engaged in
systematic abuse of his powers, obstructed Congress, and
realized the worst fears of the Framers by subordinating our
national security and dragging foreign powers into American
politics to corrupt our elections, all for the greater cause of
his own personal gain and ambition.
Article I, section 4, of the Constitution provides that the
President shall be impeached for treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. This is the essential check that
the people's representatives maintain over the executive
branch. As our constitutional expert witnesses testified, the
Framers sought to capture a broad range of Presidential
misconduct and wrongdoing through this provision. But the
commanding and comprehensive impulse for including the
impeachment power in the Constitution was to prevent the
President's abuse of power, which the Framers saw as the very
essence of impeachable conduct. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton
wrote that impeachable offenses are defined by abuse of some
public trust.
From the Federalist Papers and the records of the
Constitutional Convention and the ratifying conventions, we
find that the Framers feared principally three kinds of
betrayal of office by abuse of power: abuse of power by
exploiting public office for private political or financial
gain, number one; number two, abuse of power by betraying the
national interest in the public trust through entanglement with
foreign governments; and, number three, abuse of power by
corrupting democratic elections and denying the people proper
agency through self-government. Accord to the Framers, any one
of these violations of the public trust would be enough to
justify Presidential impeachment for abuse of power. However,
President Trump's conduct has realized all three of the
Framers' worst fears of Presidential abuse of power.
Never before in American history has an impeachment
investigation crystalized in findings of conduct that implicate
all of the major reasons that the Framers built impeachment
into our Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, the conduct we set before you today is not
some kind of surprising aberration or deviation in the
President's behavior for which he is remorseful. On the
contrary, the President is completely unrepentant and defiantly
declares his behavior here perfect, indeed absolutely perfect.
He says that Article II of the Constitution gives him the power
to do whatever he wants, conveniently forgetting Article II,
section 4, which gives us the power to check his misconduct
with the instrument of impeachment.
We believe this conduct is impeachable and should never
take place again under our constitutional system. He believes
his conduct is perfect. And we know, therefore, that it will
take place again and again.
Indeed, our report points out that this pattern of showing
spectacular disrespect for the rule of law by inviting and
welcoming foreign powers into our elections was in plain view
in the 2016 Presidential election. America remembers when then-
candidate Donald Trump uttered the imperishably infamous words:
Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the
30,000 emails that are missing.
And just 5 hours later, Russian agents moved to hack his
political opponent's computers as part of their continuing
effort to upend the 2016 Presidential campaign.
As identified by the Justice Department, the Trump campaign
had more than 100 contacts with Russian operatives over the
course of that campaign, and none of them were reported by the
Trump campaign to law enforcement or national security
agencies. Moreover, during the special counsel investigation
into the sweeping and systematic Russian campaign to subvert
our election, President Trump engaged in another systematic
campaign of obstruction of the investigative process to obscure
his own involvement.
Mr. President--Mr. Chairman, we present you not just with
high crimes and misdemeanors but a constitutional crime in
progress up to this very minute. Mayor Giuliani, the
President's private lawyer, fresh from his overseas travel,
looking to rehabilitate, once again, the discredited conspiracy
theories at the heart of the President's defense, admitted that
he participated directly in the smear campaign to oust
Ambassador Yovanovitch from her job.
According to The New Yorker magazine, Giuliani said: I
believe I needed Yovanovitch out of the way. She was going to
make the investigations difficult for everybody.
And here, of course, Mr. Giuliani refers to the President's
sought-after investigations into Joe Biden and the remnants of
a discredited conspiracy theory pushed by Russia as propaganda
that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016
American Presidential election.
Given that an unrepentant President considers his behavior
perfect, given that he thinks the Constitution empowers him to
do whatever he wants, given that he and his team are still
awaiting President Zelensky's statement about investigating Joe
Biden, given that he has already invited China to perform an
investigation of its own, we can only ask what the 2020
election will be like or, indeed, what any future election in
America will be like if we just let this misconduct go and
authorize and license Presidents to coerce, cajole, pressure,
and entice foreign powers to enter our election campaigns on
behalf of the Presidents. Who will be invited in next?
The President's continuing course of conduct constitutes a
clear and present danger to democracy in America. We cannot
allow this misconduct to pass. It would be a sellout of our
Constitution, our foreign policy, our national security, and
our democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Collins, welcome back to the Rules Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you
and Mr. Cole as well and members who I have spent many hours in
this room with.
You know, the chairman made a statement about my friend
here, Mr. Raskin, and he is a fine attorney, and it has been
amazing to me throughout this year how the Judiciary Committee
has sidelined fine attorneys like himself into not asking
questions and into not being a part of the process. It has been
really interesting to watch because he is actually a good one.
And as you said, he is a good constitutional attorney.
I am not a constitutional attorney. I am a pastor and an
attorney from north Georgia, but I believe that you can take
another look at this and you can apply constitutional lenses.
We all sat through those classes, but it is a commonsense lens.
It is a commonsense lens. Mr. Cole made a question--a comment
in his opening statement. He says--you said, Mr. Cole, you
said: It doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it does. It makes perfect sense. Look at the pattern.
You know, the only thing that is clear and present danger right
now in this room is the pattern of attack and abuse of rules
and decisions to get at this President that started over 3
years ago, really the night he was elected.
And I said the other day in the committee hearing, I
thought about, you know, having the means and the motive and
the opportunity. The opportunity for this day occurred last
November when we lost the majority. It occurred because it was
talked about for years in prior, and so now we just bring it
forward, and we have tried a lot of different things to get
there, and we will talk about that, I am sure, as the time goes
on today.
And, look, we can have plenty of time to talk about the
articles and the very vague articles that we did. It is pretty
interesting, if you read the report from the majority, there is
a lot of discussion about crimes, but they couldn't find it in
themselves to charge one. Again, common sense. Articles, and
when you think about impeachment, you are thinking about
impeaching a President in particular for crimes. You are
thinking about--you are sitting now, and this majority has
tried to so hard to be like Clinton and Nixon and failed so
miserably, but every time we try, when we try once again,
except the one thing, when it came down to the very end, the
one thing they couldn't do is actually find a crime. They talk
about it a bunch.
And if you read the majority's report, it is well-written.
It is some of the best work you will see, frankly, in some ways
a fictional account of what this actually is, but it actually
talked about it, that the problem here is a majority bent on
finding something for this President.
So, Mr. Cole, it is not a surprise. In fact, it is a sad
day not only for the Rules Committee but for the Judiciary
Committee.
You know, it is telling that the Articles of Impeachment,
to show you how partisan this is and really the concerning part
that I see--and Mr. McGovern is a friend, and we disagree, and
you are exactly right. We disagree probably on a lot of things.
Is this glass half full, half empty? And that is fine. That is
what we are supposed to do. That is what our voters send us
here for, but to find ways to actually work. We have worked
together.
The question I have here is: If this was, as the Speaker
said, supposed to--should be overwhelmingly bipartisan and the
American people understand it, then why are we in the Rules
Committee today? When it was with Clinton, it was a UC straight
to the floor. It wasn't, didn't have to come to the Rules
Committee because both sides could see there was something
needing to be discussed. And that is not true here. And so we
are having to bring it up here to the Rules Committee, a place
that I have spent many hours and many of us on this group have
discussed many things, but this should not be one of them.
You know, it is interesting and I hear a lot today and I
have heard already from Mr. Raskin, and from the chairman as
well, the discussion of the Founders, and it is interesting. We
cherry-pick the Founders, and that is okay. That is what
partisans do. When you are in a partisan impeachment, you
cherry-pick the Founders, if you like this partisan work, if
you like the other partisan.
But the one that is not mentioned is the very thing that we
are here for, and that was found, I believe it was in
Federalist I think it was 65. It was Hamilton when he said
this. He said the Founders warned against a vague, open-ended
charge because it could be applied in a partisan fashion by the
majority of the House of Representatives against an opposition
President. Alexander Hamilton called partisan impeachment,
regulated by more of the comparative strength of parties than
the real demonstration of innocence or guilt, the greatest
danger. And, additionally, the Founders explicitly excluded the
term ``maladministration'' from the impeachment clause because
they did not want to subject Presidents to the whims of
Congress, their words.
James Madison said: So vague a term, it will be the
equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.
And I would say it would be a tenure to the pleasure of
this House. When we understand what is going on here, when we
look at the discussions here, there are many things that I want
to talk about. But the first I want to do is, when we talk
about how we get to a certain place, proper process leads to
proper results, and we have not had any of that in this
process. I have always said and I have said it many times in
our discussions lately is that this is all about a clock and a
calendar. It has been for a while. Since January when we were
sworn in, it is about a clock and a calendar.
Why do I say that? Because we had to get to it by the end
of the year because, if we went into the next year, it would be
really too close, especially from the House's perspective, to
the elections that they are trying to interfere with. And, yes,
they're trying to interfere with elections, the 2020 election,
by actually beginning this process and then going forward.
Now the conduct is not conduct that respects the American
people. The clock and the calendar know no masters except
themselves. You see, our committee held its first hearing on
December 4th, literally the day after Schiff publicly released
his report. In the first minutes of the hearing, Mr.
Sensenbrenner furnished the chairman with our demand for a
minority day of hearings. The chairman also set a deadline of
December 6th for Republicans and the President to request
additional witnesses, but it wasn't until Saturday, the day
after the deadline, that Chairman Schiff transmitted 8,000
pages of material to the Judiciary Committee, and we still
haven't gotten everything, not that it matters to the majority.
For institutionalists, this should bother you. You can
still go ahead and vote for your ``yes'' tomorrow and vote for
``yes'' today and do that, but it should matter for this
institution that, while I was in Georgia, I received a call
from my staff saying they just released 8,000 documents on a
thumb drive, some of which were going to be kept in a secure
holding. And when I asked the chairman about these documents,
where are they going to be used, he said: Well, we are not
going to read them either. We are not going to have a chance to
go through them. We are just going to go ahead with what we are
doing.
That is from my chairman, whom I respect greatly. We have
done a lot of things together, but it has been very difficult
when, in a hearing of this magnitude, how can anyone,
Republican or Democrat, actually go back and look at their
constituents in the face and say, ``We looked at all the
evidence, I looked at everything, and I came to this
conclusion''? No, we cherry-picked the evidence, and we only
used what we wanted to because that material, which by the way
has still not all been released, there is the inspector
general, IG, report that is still--has not been released.
Now, whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. But when you
are talking about impeaching a President, shouldn't the
underlying evidence sent to Judiciary Committee actually
matter? Again, it doesn't take constitutional experts coming in
and telling us about it. It takes common sense to know that you
don't impeach somebody without at least making all the evidence
proper, but you know that is what happens when you are to the
tyranny of a clock and a calendar.
When you are at the tyranny of a clock and a calendar,
nothing else matters. It is like what is going to happen here
in the holidays is you are getting close to that day and you
are supposed to give that gift. Nothing else matters. You just
got to get it. At the last minute, if you don't have anything,
Mr. Hastings, I bet you have done this. You go out, and you buy
first thing you get.
And this is what was happening. The clock was running out.
So they found a phone call they didn't like. They didn't like
this administration. They didn't like what the President did.
They tried to make up claims of it. There was pressure and all
these other things that they have so outlined in the report,
but at the end of the day, it is simply last-minute Christmas
shopping. They ran and found something. They said, ``We can do
it,'' but no crimes, nothing in the articles. Abuse of power,
in which any Member can make up anything they want to and call
it an abuse of power, but in the report, they document bribery
and extortion and all these other things which they can't put
into the articles.
And then the obstruction of justice, again, is sort of
interesting, what I just read, Chairman Schiff transferred on a
Saturday 8,000 pages of what we were supposed to be looking at
for the next hearing.
We submitted our list of witnesses to Nadler the day--Mr.
Nadler before Schiff--we submitted it before Schiff had sent us
anymore evidence. Last Monday, we had hearing so Schiff's staff
and Nadler's consultants could tell us that the President needs
to be impeached. Again, nothing from Chairman Schiff who had
made the reference to himself being like Ken Starr. But for
those in this room who have at least opened a history book, Ken
Starr actually came and testified and took questions from
everyone, including the White House counsel.
On Monday, the chairman objected to all of our witnesses
out of hand. And on Tuesday, the morning after, the
presentation of articles were unveiled. Remember, think about
this: No factual-based witnesses. We had a bunch of law
professors, one for us. By the way, I did ask for another one.
Didn't get it. No reasoning. We just went back. We are in
impeachment hearings, and we went back to the normal three-to-
one ratio. I asked for one more and basically didn't get it. It
was an interesting conversation between the chairman and I.
Didn't get it.
Then we came in and got our witness list summarily
dismissed. We get information dumped to us in the middle of
what we are supposed to be doing, right before we are having to
have hearings, before we had to--after the fact we had to turn
in our witness list.
Judge, I don't think this would fly in any regular normal
court proceeding because I know this is not. So before anybody
wants to tweet or say anything, ``We are not in a court.'' I
know that. We are in a kangaroo court, it feels like in this
place, because all of this is backwards. What is up is down,
and down is up. We are more Alice in Wonderland than we are
House of Representatives because, whether you agree he needs to
be impeached or not, do you not think there needs to be a
modicum of process and rights?
All of this is true. The rules completely aside; the
minority hearing date, broken; access to committee records
rules, broken; due process for the accused in impeachment,
completely out the window; Rules for decorum and debate, we
have seen that broken, even on the House floor. H. Res. 660,
the authorization for this whole thing, the chairman could have
used it to run a fair process. Unfortunately, we didn't.
The problem comes down today is there are several things I
am going to leave you with, Mr. Chairman, and this is it. After
all that has been said, all that has been talked about, and all
that has went in that wonderfully written report, there is four
facts that will never change: Both the President and Mr.
Zelensky say there was no pressure. The call transcript shows
no conditionality in aid and in investigation.
By the way, Mr. Sondland, their key witness, the only thing
they ever quote is his opening statement. They don't like to
quote when he actually was questioned, when he said: Well,
yeah, I presumed that.
And then, when you talk about Mr. Yermak, Mr. Yermak said:
We didn't have any conversation about conditionality of aid.
That one just come out just the other day. I am not sure
where we are getting this, but this definitely wasn't in the
call transcript.
Ukrainians were not aware the aid was withheld, even when
the President spoke. And Ukrainians did not open
investigations, didn't get a meeting, and still got their aid.
But what did we see last week and over the past 2 weeks? We
saw Mr. Zelensky, President Zelensky, pilloried in our
committee. He is either a liar, a pathological liar, according
to the majority, or he is so weak he shouldn't be governing
that country. That is tragic. We actually did that to this
sitting world leader in our committee.
These are the kind of things that bother many of us, but
also I know this is also on the clock and the calendar, too. We
will have a few hours here. We will talk about it, but I will
remind my majority friends, and I do consider you friends, the
clock and the calendar are terrible masters and they lead to
awful results and, yes, there will be a day of reckoning. The
calendar and the clock will continue, but what you do here and
how we have trashed the process in getting here will live on,
and it will affect everything that we have come for.
And so whatever you may gain will be short-lived because
the clock and the calendar also recognize common sense which
has not been used in this proceeding.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I want to thank both of you for your opening statements.
Mr. Collins, you raised the issue why we are here in the
Rules Committee today. And let me just state for the record
that, as you know, the Constitution gives the House the sole
power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules.
You know, when President Nixon, during the time he was going to
be impeached, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman
Madden, actually spoke on the House floor and announced there
would be a rule governing how that proceeding would move
forward.
When the Clinton Articles of Impeachment were brought
forward, there was a unanimous consent agreement to govern how
we conducted ourselves. And I am not sure how likely it would
be that we would get a unanimous consent agreement.
I would like to ask unanimous consent, without objection,
to enter into the record a letter that was sent to the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, signed by, I think, 70 Republican
Members, including Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Basically--let me read the key line here--
``we will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available
to us in committees and on the House floor to highlight your
inaction''--translated means to try to delay and to make this
process as impossible as it can be made. I am not sure, in
light of this letter, that we could get a unanimous consent
agreement with regard to these proceedings to break for a cup
of coffee, never mind determine the rules of engagement. So, I
would point that out.
In terms of process, I just want to, again, state for the
record, because I think it is important, that I think the House
has engaged in a fair impeachment inquiry process. Democrats
and Republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in
the months' long impeachment inquiry. Members of both parties
have been involved at every stage in this process, from sitting
in and asking questions in closed-door depositions to
questioning witnesses in open hearings.
The committees took more than a hundred hours of deposition
testimony from 17 witnesses, held 7 public hearings, which
included Republican-requested witnesses. They produced a 300-
page public report that laid out their findings and evidence.
The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted two
public hearings, evaluating the evidence and legal standard for
impeachment, before reporting the two articles that we are
dealing with here today.
And I should also point out that President Trump was
provided an opportunity to participate in the Judiciary
Committee's review of the evidence presented against him, as
President Clinton was during his impeachment inquiry. President
Trump chose not to participate. President Trump to date has not
provided any exculpatory evidence but instead has blocked
numerous witnesses from testifying about his actions.
And so, I just thought it was important to point that out.
Mr. Raskin, I saw you scribbling furiously while Mr.
Collins was testifying. I don't know whether there is something
that you wanted to respond to.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend, Mr.
Collins, speaks very fast. So it is hard to keep up with
everything he is saying but a couple of things----
Mr. Collins. This is as slow as I have spoken.
The Chairman. That is all right. I am from Massachusetts,
and people say the same thing about my accent.
Mr. Collins. I will tell you most anything, but today you
got to give me credit. That was as slow as you have ever heard
me.
Mr. Raskin. I give you credit. You were making an effort at
the beginning, and so was I. They accuse me of the same.
Let me--he raises some really important points, and I would
love the chance to briefly address them.
One thing that we have been hearing is that we didn't
charge crimes, and in some sense, that just duplicates a basic
confusion that people have about what the process is. We are
not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal defendant in
court to send to jail. That is not what we are doing. We are
Members of Congress who are working to protect the country
against a President who is committing high crimes and
misdemeanors, that is, constitutional offenses against the
people of the country.
Now lots of the conduct that we plead in our specific
articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress
themselves could become part of criminal indictments later on,
but it has been a curious thing for me to hear our colleagues
across the aisle repeatedly make this point and kind of spread
this confusion that there are not crimes in there when they
were the very first ones to be saying and continue to say the
Department of Justice cannot prosecute the President; the
President may not be indicted; the President may not be
prosecuted while he is in office. That is the position they
take.
They then cannot turn around and say: Oh, and you can't
impeach him because you haven't charged him with any crimes and
prosecuted him and indicted him.
You see, ``heads, I win; tails you lose'' is the essence of
that argument.
And, of course, if you go back to the Richard Nixon case,
we didn't have to see that Richard Nixon had been convicted of
burglary in the District of Columbia by ordering the break-in
of The Watergate Hotel before he was accused--before he was
charged with abuse of power as a high crime and misdemeanor.
That is exactly what we are charging President Trump with here.
We don't have to first go out and prove that he committed
bribery or committed honest services fraud or committed
extortion, all things that he really could be prosecuted for
later. We simply have to allege the course of constitutional
criminal conduct he was engaged in. And so I think that we can
set that one aside.
A second thing that my friend said was that there were no
fact witnesses, that this was based on the report that was
delivered to us by the House Committee on Intelligence. And, of
course, that is a play on words, too. There were 17 fact
witnesses who appeared before the House Committee on
Intelligence, the House Oversight Committee, and the House
Foreign Affairs Committee. The way we structured this
impeachment process, which is completely our prerogative under
Article I, section 2, clause 5, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is
to have the fact investigation into this affair, which involved
foreign governments and ambassadors and so on, in the
Intelligence Committee; then to have them bring the facts in a
comprehensive report to the House Judiciary Committee, which
would then make the decision about the law: Do all of these
events rise to what we think is impeachable conduct? And, of
course, we did. So there are lots of fact witnesses.
The fact we also had the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee come and to deliver the report and defend the report
and all of my friends on the other side of the aisle had a
chance to question as we had the chance to question. When you
say there were no fact witnesses, that is also a perfect
description of what took place during the Clinton impeachment
because all of that took place as part of the independent
counsel investigation by Kenneth Starr. There were closed-door,
secret depositions taking place there. Then Kenneth Starr came
to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material
they brought over in a U-Haul truck and gave it to the House
Judiciary Committee. That was the end of it.
Monica Lewinsky didn't testify before the House Judiciary
Committee. There were not witnesses who had been there who were
brought before the House Judiciary Committee. So we are
following the exact same pattern I think that took place there
except that it was the House of Representatives here which did
its own fact investigation through this assortment of
committees.
Finally, the--well, let me just say a word about the
fairness of the process, and, you know, we all know what they
teach you in law school, which is: If the facts are against
you, you pound the law. If the law is against you, you pound
the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you talk
about the process and you pound the table.
And I am afraid I have seen a little bit of that in the
performance of our colleagues here, and I don't blame them
because they are dealing with the hand that they were dealt.
We have 17 fact witnesses, and all of their depositions and
all their testimony was published and all part of the report.
Everybody--everybody--can find it and all of their testimony is
essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted. It tells one story,
which is the President of the United States conducted a
shakedown of a foreign power. He used $391 million that we in
Congress have voted for a besieged, struggling democracy,
Ukraine, to defend itself against Russian invasion and attack,
to coerce that--the President of that foreign government,
President Zelensky, to get involved in our election campaign.
What did he want him to do? Well, he wanted President
Zelensky to make an announcement on television that Joe Biden
was being investigated. Now what does that have to do with the
foreign policy of the United States? What does that have to do
with what Congress voted for? What does it have to do with any
legitimate interest of the U.S. Government?
But the other thing that he wanted President Zelensky to do
was to rehabilitate the completely discredited conspiracy
theory that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, that had interfered
in our election. Our entire intelligence community, the NSA,
the CIA, the FBI--the Senate Committee on Intelligence issued a
report about this--all of them say the same thing, which is
that it was Russia that conducted what the Department of
Justice called a sweeping and systematic campaign against our
election in 2016.
You remember, Mr. Chairman, they injected propaganda into
our polity through social media, Facebook and Twitter and so
on. They directly conducted cyber invasion and attack and
espionage against the Democratic National Committee, the DCCC,
Hillary Clinton's headquarters, and they directly tried to get
into our State boards of elections, not two or three; all 50 of
them they tried to get into. That is what Russia did, and now
all of a sudden we have the President of the United States
telling President Zelensky that if he wants the $391 million
that we voted for and that he has been certified for by the
Department of Defense and the Department of State, clearing
every anticorruption screen that would have been put in place
and called for by Congress, if he wants the money and if he
wants the White House meeting that he desperately wanted to
show that America was on Ukraine's side and not Russia's side,
if he wanted to get that stuff, he had to come and get involved
in our Presidential campaign and he had to rehabilitate this
discredited story about 2016.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you.
You know, I have been listening to some of the commentary
in the news from some of the pundits. And sometimes I think
people need a lesson in constitutional law. That is why it is
great that you are here. Let me ask you a basic question
because I think sometimes people don't understand: Why is
impeachment in the Constitution?
Mr. Raskin. Oh, that is a great question.
And Mr. Collins invoked indirectly my favorite American
revolutionary, Tom Paine, who, of course, wrote, ``Common Sense
and the Age of Reason.'' And he said you can't have one without
the other. In other words, you need the common sense of the
people, and you need people to be conducting things according
to reason, rationality, facts, empiricism, science. But why did
Paine come all the way over here to participate in the American
Revolution, which was not foreordained to win in any way?
Because America was the first Nation in history born out of a
revolutionary struggle against monarchy, against the idea that
you could have hereditary rule.
Paine said a hereditary ruler is as ridiculous as a
hereditary mathematician or a hereditary artist, right? He said
the people have got to decide on their own leaders.
Now, impeachment is an instrument that our Founders put
into the Constitution, informed by the British experience.
There was impeachment that Parliament had, but it wasn't
against the King. It was only against royal ministers. Why?
Because of the British doctrine the King can do no wrong.
Right? That is kind of like the King can do whatever he wants.
The King can do no wrong, and, therefore, the King couldn't be
impeached. But our Founders insisted that impeachment be in
there, not just for other civil officers who might commit high
crimes and misdemeanors against the people, but against the
President himself.
And, of course, the President in the domestic emoluments
clause is limited to a fixed salary in office, which can be
neither increased or decreased by Congress. And he can't
receive any over emoluments from the government's help and any
other payments. The President is effectively an employee of the
American people. That is the way he is designed. He is not
above the people. He is a servant of the people like all of us
are. And the President's core job is what? To take care that
the laws are faithfully executed. And, if he doesn't faithfully
execute the laws, if he thwarts the laws, if he tramples the
laws and he commits crimes against the American people, then we
are not going to send him to prison. He is not going to go to
jail for one day. But he needs to be removed in order to
protect democracy.
The Chairman. For the record, why is abuse of power an
impeachable offense?
Mr. Raskin. Abuse of power is the essential impeachment
offense. That is why it is in there. What it is about is
elevating the personal interests and ambitions of the President
above the common good, above the rule of law, and above the
Constitution.
And so the Founders didn't want a President who was going
to behave like a king. We had seen enough of that. We wanted a
President who was going to implement the laws, go out and, you
know, implement the Affordable Care Act and implement the
environmental laws. That is your job. You know, that is what
you are supposed to be doing.
The Chairman. So we have seen evidence that the President
decided to withhold from Ukraine important official acts, the
White House visit, military aid, in order to pressure Ukraine
to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and the 2016
elections. Why does that constitute an impeachable offense?
Mr. Raskin. So, well, it basically implicates every single
one of the concerns that were raised by the Founders at the
Constitutional Convention. One, it places the personal
political agenda and ambitions of the President over enforcing
the laws and enforcing the rule of law.
Two, it drags foreign powers into our election. That was
something that the Framers were terrified about. There was a
great exchange between Adams and Jefferson about just this
issue that there would be constant foreign intrigue and
influence, attempts to come and influence, because we would be
an open democracy. And so people would try to exploit our
openness by getting involved in our elections with their
foreign government concerns, which is why the President had to
have complete undivided loyalty to the American people and to
the American Constitution and not get involved with foreign
governments, not drag foreign governments into our affairs.
So, basically, you have everything the Framers were
concerned about tied up into one bundle here, which is
involving foreign governments in our elections, placing the
President's interests over all of--over everything else, and
then essentially threatening the rule of the people in
democracy.
The Chairman. And where do you draw the line between a
legitimate use of Presidential power and an abuse of power? Why
is it significant that President Trump acted for his personal
political advantage and not for the furtherance of any valid
national policy objective?
Mr. Raskin. Well, that is a great question because our
colleagues have shrewdly zeroed in on the fact that some of the
witnesses, including Ambassador Sondland, said: Well, of
course, there was a quid pro quo. The President was not going
to release the aid. He was not going to have the meeting until
he got what he wanted in terms of political interference.
And then even the President's White House chief of staff
said: Yes, of course, there was a quid pro quo--I am not
quoting directly, so I don't have the exact words--but he was
saying: Yes, this is the way we proceed. Get used to it. Okay.
And our colleagues have said: Well, there is always quid
pro quos tied up in foreign policy. In other words, it is legit
to say to a foreign government: We will give you this aid if
you comply that the aid is all being used in the proper way. We
will give you this assistance if you attend these conferences
and meetings with us to make sure the assistance is being used
properly and so on. There is nothing wrong with that.
But look at what happened here.
[Recess.]
Mr. Raskin. This was an arrangement where the President
conditioned all of this foreign assistance that we had sent,
$200 million to the Department of Defense, $191 million to the
Department of State, to help Ukraine defend itself against
Russia, and the President said--but what he was holding out for
was the interference of the Ukrainian President in our election
to harm his political opponent. And I think everyone can
recognize that is not the normal kind of push and pull and
arrangements the nations make for each other. Why? Because the
President privileged his own political interest, and that is
why it was all done secretly, and luckily, there were witnesses
who were willing to come forward and to explain what happened.
The Chairman. And Mr. Collins, I will ask you and Mr.
Raskin the same question. Was the President's call with
President Zelensky perfect, as the President had said? And was
it appropriate for him to ask another country to investigate an
American citizen?
Mr. Collins. As I have said before, there was nothing wrong
with the call and when you look at it--again, frankly, the
last--the problem we are having right now is exactly the last
15 minutes of this. Great oratory on a lot of things that mean
nothing to this actual impeachment. I mean, if we get down to
the bottom line here and--honestly, leave it at that. Let him
answer that question. I will get back to it later, because
everything that has been thrown out here is exactly what the
problem we have had and the discussion. And this idea of
throwing law, in fact, we have disproven the facts. We have
talked about the law. Law wasn't broken. We didn't put it in
the Constitution. So I can yell on both of them, I can talk
about both of them. The problem we have here is, is this is the
very problem we have--and I will just address one thing before
I let it back, or if you want me to switch right now, I will.
The Chairman. That is fine.
Mr. Collins. I will give it to him.
The Chairman. That is fine. I am looking at the President's
transcript saying I would like you to do us a favor, though. I
mean, do you think it was a perfect call?
Mr. Collins. Well, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman actually said
it was perfectly okay for the President to ask for political
call. It was in his testimony.
The Chairman. Do you think it is appropriate?
Mr. Collins. So he said, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said
would it ever be--it was asked, would it ever be U.S. policy in
your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political
investigation. He replied, certainly, the President is well
within his right to do that.
The Chairman. Do you think it is right for the President to
ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen like
that?
Mr. Raskin. No. I think it is absolutely wrong. One of the
interesting things about the hearings, of course, was that
every single--I think every single Member of Congress who has
at least endorsed impeachment inquiry has said that it is
completely wrong for the U.S. President to use any of the means
at his disposal to drag foreign governments into our election
and we were unable to get our colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee to weigh in on that, saying, let's assume that you
think--let's stipulate you think that the President did nothing
wrong here, do you think it is wrong for the President of the
United States to get foreign powers involved in our election
and we couldn't get an answer.
I reissued the invitation to Mr. Collins. I believe that in
his heart, he thinks that is wrong and I certainly would not
want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies.
Mr. Collins. I think the interesting thing here, Mr.
Chairman, if I could. I don't want this to become the pattern
for future impeachments. I think this is the problem I have.
The understanding here is, I guess, it is okay, though, to get
involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to go
pay for a dossier. These are the kinds of things we can talk
about, but the interesting issue that is just discussed here is
exactly where we are right now in a question and a comment,
because what Mr. Raskin just brought up is an interesting
point.
So is it okay if you are running for President that you
can't be investigated, even if you did something overseas? So
if you are running for President, and you did something
overseas, it would be off-limits, according to Mr. Raskin's
argument, for the United States Government to investigate that.
That is the argument he just set up. I think you need to be
very careful with that argument.
The Chairman. Again, I mentioned this in my opening
statement, the frustrating thing is that it seems so obvious to
so many of us about inappropriate behavior, our former
colleague, Charlie Dent, says he spoke with Republicans who are
absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the President's behavior.
Another former Republican colleague of ours, David Jolly said,
we have witnessed, quote, ``an impeachable moment.''
Former Republican Congressman Reid Ribble of Wisconsin
said, clearly there was some type of quid pro quo. When asked
if he believes the testimony presented warrants impeachment, he
said, I do.
Former South Carolina Republican Bob English, who served on
the Judiciary Committee, during the Clinton impeachment said
last month, in a tweet, without a doubt, if Barack Obama had
done the things revealed in the testimony and the current
inquiry, we Republicans would have impeached him.
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman from
Florida said, every Republican knows that Donald Trump was
asking for dirt on Joe Biden in exchange for releasing military
funds. Let's go on to--do you want to respond, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Sure. I would be delighted to, but one thing--I
was just passed a note saying I may have gotten the numbers
wrong. Department of Defense had $250 million appropriation for
the purposes of aiding Ukraine in the state at 141 million. I
may have misspoken.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Raskin. As to that point, again, I feel for my friends
because I think they are put into a situation, put into a box,
so to speak, which was what President Trump was quoted as
saying about what he wanted to do with President Zelensky, he
wanted him in a box about statements, but I think they are put
into something of a corner here, because the President has
declared his conduct perfect, absolutely perfect, and he can do
whatever he wants.
And so they are unable to say--to make the case that I
would make--if I were trying to defend the President, I would
say, Okay, that was totally wrong and off-limits, but it is not
impeachable for X, Y, and Z reasons, but they are not allowing
anybody that space to say it. They must go with the President's
assertion that this was categorically correct. There was
nothing wrong with it. It was perfectly right and, you know, he
quoted legal scholars. He didn't name them, but he invoked
legal scholars who told him that the call was perfect as well.
The Chairman. I want to move my questioning along here a
little bit. So let me ask you on the issue of obstruction of
Congress, why is the obstruction of Congress an impeachable
offense?
Mr. Raskin. Well, look, this is something--Mr. Collins made
a really important point, which is, that we have got to think
about this in institutional terms, okay. And he rightly calls
us to redouble our commitment to fairness in the process. I
have seen lots of fairness in this process. I have seen in the
closed door depositions, I saw the Democratic counsel get an
hour, I saw the Republican counsel get an hour, I saw the
Democratic members get to question, I saw the Republican
members get to question. I have seen this committee bend over
backwards to get all of the depositions out as quickly as
possible while the President of the United States is stopping,
at least, seven witnesses from coming forward. It may be more
than that, but he has blockaded witnesses. The President, who
says the process is unfair, is the one who is stopping
everybody from coming to testify and is essentially trying to
blockade the whole investigation.
Look, why is this essential, Mr. Chairman? It is essential
because for institutional reasons. It is essential for
institutional reasons because in the future it might be a
majority Democratic Congress, it might be a majority Republican
Congress, but in any event, it is Congress, and one of our jobs
is as Members of Congress is to make sure that the President
does not violate the laws.
We are supposed to stand sentinel to make sure that the
President will only enforce the laws, take care that the laws
are faithfully executed. Well, what happens if you get a
President who totally trashes the law? Okay. Some of us think
we may be there now. I know some of our colleagues don't
believe that, but certainly they can imagine a situation where
a President advertises spectacular disrespect and contempt for
the law and trashes the law.
What is our ultimate check against that? It is going to be
impeachment. That is why it is in the Constitution, but now we
have a President who, for the first time in American history
says, I am going to try to block the ability of Congress to
impeach me by not turning over one single document, by trying
to hold back people from testifying like Secretary Pompeo, like
chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, like multiple other members of
the administration. I don't want them to come forward and
testify.
And so, we are going to have to use our common sense to
derive conclusions about what that means. What does our common
sense tell us when you have all these other people coming
forward and testifying about the misconduct of the President,
and then the President trying to block everybody else from
coming forward to testify in his administration.
The Chairman. And let me just point out for the record, we
have requested several documents and testimony from members of
this administration, and what has the President's
administration done in response? Nothing. I think it is
important for people to understand, just for the record,
requests for documents from the State Department, ignored;
requests for documents from the Department of Defense, ignored;
requests for documents from the Vice President, ignored;
requests for documents from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas,
ignored; requests from documents from Giuliani associate, Igor
Fruman, ignored; requests from documents from the White House,
ignored; requests from documents from Rudy Giuliani the
President's lawyer, ignored; requests from testimony of former
national security adviser John Bolton, ignored; requests from
the testimony of White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney,
ignored.
And here is a list of all the requests that have been made.
The red marks are, basically, to demonstrate noncompliance that
they have been ignored. I think this is what you call
obstruction, plain and simple. And, in fact, the only people
that have complied with that request have been patriotic public
servants, many of them defying instructions that they not
comply. I guess, I just ask, what presumptions should we make
when the President prevents witnesses from complying with
congressional subpoenas?
Mr. Raskin. Let's use our common sense. People who have
exculpatory evidence, which is just a fancy way of saying
evidence that shows their innocence, want the court to see the
evidence. People who have evidence that demonstrates their
innocence would bring that to Congress. People who have
evidence, which they think may be inculpatory, people have
evidence which may lead people to believe in their guilt, will
try to keep it away.
But you just make a really profoundly important point, Mr.
Chairman, which link Article I and Article II of the
impeachment articles, do we want to set a precedent that
people--that U.S. citizens can become President of the United
States by inviting foreign powers to get involved in our
election, then once they are in, if Congress decides that their
conduct is impeachable and involves high crimes and
misdemeanors, they can then pull a curtain down over the
executive branch and not allow any investigation, not allow
subpoenas to be honored and so on. That is a very dangerous
prospect that would have terrified and horrified and shocked
the Framers of our Constitution.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. He is on a roll.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, I am about to yield to my ranking
member, who I am sure has lots and lots of questions, but I do
want to take a moment, I think it is important that we remember
this. So I want to remind everybody why we are here today.
The President abused the power of his office for his own
personal gain and obstructed a congressional investigation to
look into that conduct. How did he do that? He withheld aid for
a country that was under siege by Russia to leverage help for
his political campaign. President Trump's abuse of power has
endangered our free elections and national security, and
remains an ongoing threat to them both. He showed us a pattern
of inviting foreign interference in our elections, and is
trying to cover it up twice, and he has threatened to do it
again.
With the 2020 elections fast approaching, we must act with
a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our
Constitution. On our first day as Members of Congress, we took
an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not
swear allegiance to a political party; I swore allegiance to
the Constitution, and I hope all my colleagues will do the
same.
With that, I would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Cole,
for any questions he may have.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And you are
right. I do have a lot of questions, and I appreciate your
forbearance because----
The Chairman. I am very liberal.
Mr. Cole. Yes, you are. And in this sense, the finest sense
of the word, so I express my appreciation for that ahead of
times as we have discussed. To my friend, Mr. Raskin, a number
of my questions have been crafted, or were originally crafted,
for Chairman Nadler. You may or may not be able to answer those
directly. We certainly understand why he is not here, and, as
the chairman said, we sympathize with him in the difficult
time, but we think they are still important for the record.
Mr. Raskin. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cole. I just wanted to highlight that for you.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a document entitled, quote: ``How we resist Trump,''
unquote, authored by Congressman Jerry Nadler and posted on
www.JerryNadler.com on November 16th of 2016.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this document,
Chairman Nadler wrote, quote: ``We cannot wait 4 years to vote
Mr. Trump out of office, so we must do everything we can to
stop Trump and his extreme agenda now,'' unquote.
Mr. Raskin, on August 8th, Chairman Nadler stated with
respect to the Judiciary Committee's hearing regarding the
Mueller report that, quote, ``this is a formal impeachment
proceeding,'' unquote, but the House did not actually authorize
impeachment proceedings until the adoption of H. Res. 660 on
October 31st. So I believe it is important to clarify for the
record when formal impeachment proceedings actually started. Is
Chairman Nadler correct when he said they started on August
8th, or did they begin when the House authorized them on
October 31st?
Mr. Raskin. Forgive me, Mr. Cole. I was not actually
prepared to answer that question, but I think the Judiciary
Committee has taken formal positions which we can track about
this question. I would just direct you to, again, Article I,
Section 2, clause 5, the House of Representatives is the sole
power of impeachment, and can design and structure impeachment
as it sees fit.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Cole. Not outside of House rules they
can't. Not without passing a resolution that then gives them
power and authority that goes outside of House rules. That is
the problem we had with this early long is they were going
outside of House rules. And again, when counsels are not--have
been here forever trying to make this happen, this is what
happens. They went outside of House rules, so that is the
problem I have had with this and we can discuss that more in
depth.
Mr. Cole. I think the spirit behind this suggested this has
been going on for quite some time longer than the formal
proceedings.
Mr. Raskin, on December 10th, 1998, during the Clinton
impeachment proceedings, Chairman Nadler stated in the House
Judiciary Committee that, quote: ``There must never be a
narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one
of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an
impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in
politics for years to come and will call into question the very
legitimacy of our political institutions.''
Do you believe that this impeachment, which is supported by
only one political party, has produced bitterness in the
current political climate?
Mr. Raskin. So, well, again, I am going to have to allow
Chairman Nadler to speak for his own words.
Mr. Cole. I certainly understand that.
Mr. Raskin. So, look, there has been a lot of bitterness
and division in our country for several years now, preceding
any impeachment proceedings, and it is a sad thing, and I hope
that everybody rallies around the Constitution, because it is
the Constitution that we will get us through this difficult
time in our history.
Let me just say about the Clinton impeachment. So the
conduct that President Clinton was charged with, which was--he
hadn't been convicted or prosecuted for perjury, but he was
essentially charged with perjuring himself in describing
private conduct, the sexual affair, and the conduct that we are
looking at today goes right to the heart of why impeachment is
in the Constitution.
Impeachment is in the Constitution because of public
offenses by political leaders against democracy itself. So I
think you cannot compare what President Clinton was impeached
for by the House of Representatives, and I hold no brief for
his conduct in any way, but I don't think you can compare that
to the massive, overwhelming, and unrefuted evidence we have
that the President of the United States, today, has tried to
drag a foreign power into our elections to his own political
advantage.
Mr. Cole. It wasn't exactly the question I asked, but let
me turn to Mr. Collins, and see if you agree with Mr. Raskin,
or is there anything you would disagree with there, and what
has been the impact of this process on the domestic politics of
the country since it has been essentially partisan in nature?
Mr. Collins. Look, not trying to--and, again, I will cut
some slack that he was trying to answer for a chairman's own
words, and I get that--
Mr. Cole. Absolutely.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. But I think there is several
things--let's just talk here for just a minute. Let's unpack
what has happened here, because the only thing I appreciate
really out of the whole last few minutes was the chairman
trying to bring it in to about impeachment. I agree with him on
that point that this is about impeachment. What I disagree is,
it is not about abuse of power, it is not everything else, and
it would come a lot better from the majority if they have not
had a long history, a written record. This is something that
you love to see in the law because it is a written record of
motive. You have seen it since the day that he was elected. You
have seen it in this whole process working out. You saw it last
year when my chairman ran for the job because he would be the
best for impeachment. What was hanging out last year for
impeachment?
What became of the Mueller report that didn't give them
everything they wanted? And then we came into a call. This is a
pattern and, look, I have said this to my chairman who I
respect, you have got the votes, just vote it. You have got the
votes. You can go explain it to the American people. Talk about
affecting an election, this is what we are looking at. But
there are a few things here, though, that is interesting.
As I said earlier on, time and clock are terrible masters,
and I have heard it so many times from the chairman of this
committee, the chairman of my committee, and others, we have
got do this because of the 2020 election. Well, put a candidate
up that is worth voting for. How about that? Instead of going
after a President who you are having trouble beating because of
the things that have happened in our country with unemployment,
with the economy going good, and everything else. That is what
political primaries are for, not this.
When you look back--and I still never got an answer to my
question I had just a few minutes ago about have we now set a
standard that if you run for President, you can do anything you
want to overseas and not get investigated for it? I ain't got
that question answered. But in a response also to the
chairman's question about requesting stuff. As the chairman
knows, and also my chairman knows because my chairman likes
subpoenas, he likes to threaten them anyway, but the Secretary
of Defense responded. He said it was open to negotiation to
you, Secretary of State. Part of the document dump was part of
that and the House Judiciary Committee, the dump that we did
get from the Intelligence Committee had OMB records from the
Budget Committee in it. I mean, there are issues here that I
have had problems with all year in this and, you know, if you
didn't receive a letter as we have done in the past when we are
in the majority under President Obama, and President Obama, in
Fast and Furious and other times, the thing that amazes me is
it seems like the majority this year, all of a sudden,
discovered that the executive branch and the legislative branch
don't play well together in the sand box.
This is not a shock for any of us who have been here under
the Obama administration. We saw this happen over and over. I
was on oversight my first 2 years here. My former legislative
director is here. She is in the room. We pulled our hair out
over of this. We had IRS. We had everything else and it was
constantly being stonewalled and stopped, had to actually issue
subpoenas at which, finally, the courts did rule and this is
your problem: The courts ruled many years later that Attorney
General Holder did violate not giving the information out, and
that was actually done, but it was many years later. Again,
your time and clock as calendar is a terrible master, and you
are having to do this because you promised it. You promised it.
We are carrying through on a promise here.
The other thing is, we talk about fairness here that my
friend said, Oh, this has been completely fair. Nobody's
questioned the fact that our folks got to question the witness.
Nobody's questioning that fact. But what about the fact of the
majority preventing witnesses under rules from using agency
counsel, even under the auspices of an impeachment
investigation? How about cutting off Republican questions and
refusing to allow the third branch to even rule on claims of
privilege when one was actually done? You actually withdrew
from the lawsuit.
So, again, it is not a matter of time here, it is not a
matter of facts. Again, when we go back to it, I can't not
repeat this over and over again, because it comes up with Mr.
Raskin, comes up with the chairman, it will come up again many
other times, put pressure on a world leader. This pressure is
amazing me because the guy who was supposed to being pressured
denied it ever happened on multiple occasions.
One of his own members of cabinet says we never talked
about conditionality. Yermak said we never talked about
conditionality of aid. The only times that they talk about this
outside of presumption and hearsay, presumption and hearsay.
Their main witness, Sondland, said it was presumption. Oh, that
is what I presume because when he actually asked the President
straight up, what do you want? He said, I want nothing. I just
want him to do what he promised and he ran on. That is all he
did.
So it is presumption and hearsay. And granted, this is not
a court of law because, believe me, this would have been over a
long time ago. We wouldn't have gotten to this place. The rules
have allowed it to get to this place because majority rules in
this place.
But here is the problem: The pressure issue is sad because,
again, to continue this line of thought after the President of
the Ukraine has come out and denied it and denied it and denied
it and denied it, you are either calling him a pathological
liar, a world leader, or you are calling as was actually--he
was actually called in our committee last week a battered wife.
He was actually called that, compared to a battered wife.
How low have we sunk? This is the problem because at the end of
the day--and we can go into a process files, we can go into
everything else, but you know something, I made--I don't say it
is a mistake, but I took my own chairman at his word when I
read about his comments from 20 years ago, when he said the
Judiciary Committee should never take a report from a third
party, and actually not try to investigate itself, otherwise we
have become a rubber stamp. Congratulations. Our Judiciary
Committee became a rubber stamp. I hope we recover, because
that is all we are doing right now, is just rubber-stamping
what Adam Schiff did under his own rules, under his own time,
under his own ways, again, a man who has also been out for this
President since day one, and would not come and testify.
That is the most amazing, shocking thing to me in this
whole process, but when you understand where we are at here, I
can understand why Mr. Raskin, who is eloquent in his
discussion of Constitution, and why we have an impeachment;
let's just cut to the fact: You don't like the guy. You don't
like the conversation. You don't like how he does business
because at the end of the day, when you start talking about the
pressure on a foreign power to do something for you
personally--again, to even get to that remotely, you are having
to change words in the transcript. Instead of do us a favor for
our country, ``do us,'' you have to change it to ``me.''
You have to change the facts. And the last time I checked,
this country is not real kind to those who are accused having
those who are in power change the rules to fit their game. That
is not due process. But I am going to go back over it because
the chairman actually said, here is why we are here. There are
four facts that never changed. Four facts that will never
change, and it goes straight to the heart of anything said
outside of abuse of power or anything else. There is no
pressure, President Trump/President Zelensky.
The transcript shows no conditionality of aid, and an
investigation, and the only one relied upon over 600 times in
the Intelligence Committee report was Mr. Sondland, who after
he got past his perfect opening statement when questioned,
said, Well, that is what I presumed it to be. And then when
actually talked to the President of the United States, he was
told, no, all I want him is to do his job, nothing else. And
then when he actually said I had a conversation with Mr.
Yermak, Mr. Yermak said there was nothing discussed of
conditionality.
So how do you put this much faith in Mr. Sondland when he
has conditionally told stories that change? And all of the rest
were hearsay. All of the rest were actually going off of other
things, and even with Carl Vindman, who I respect as a soldier,
actually said when the question was asked, is it okay to have
this call said yes, it is okay, for a President can do that, to
ask for a political investigation because it happens, and he
even said that.
So the question comes back: The Ukrainians were not even
aware their aid was withheld, and the Ukrainians didn't open an
investigation to get the money.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you, is this the first partisan
impeachment inquiry in the Nation's history?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Cole. Has a President ever been impeached without votes
from a minority party before?
Mr. Collins. I think there is some discussion about that
with the Johnson impeachment from many years ago, but that was
also when the Congress himself set him up with a law, so I
think you have to say that was an impeachment. In a modern-day
era, this is a partisan impeachment.
Mr. Cole. March of this year, Speaker Pelosi said
impeachment must be, quote, compelling and overwhelmingly
bipartisan. Only Democrats voted to authorize the impeachment
inquiry, there is bipartisan opposition to the inquiry, and it
appears there will be bipartisan opposition to the articles.
Ranking Member Collins, given all of that, do you believe
the upcoming vote on H. Res 755 comports with the standards set
by the Speaker herself?
Mr. Collins. No. It comes nowhere close.
Mr. Cole. Is your belief that meeting an arbitrary deadline
is more important to the Democratic majority than building a
viable case if, in fact, there is cause for impeachment?
Mr. Collins. Their own words convict them of that.
Mr. Cole. The premise these Articles of Impeachment rests
on a pause placed on Ukrainian security assistance, a pause by
way of less than 2 months, 55 days, I believe, Democrats have
spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of
this pause, but offered no factual evidence. Did Ukraine ever
initiate investigations into the Bidens?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Cole. Was the aid ultimately released?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Cole. Do you believe the taxpayer dollars of the
American people were well-served by the pause?
Mr. Collins. They were. In fact, the President himself, not
policymakers, not administrative officials in different offices
are not the ones who have final authority to decide if that is
going to be. That is the President's call; that is the
President's decision, and he made the call.
Mr. Cole. Is it unusual for aid to be paused on by chief
executive?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Cole. Did the Democratic majority subpoena all core
witnesses with first-hand evidence on any potential quid pro
quo with the Ukrainian controversy?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Cole. Has anyone in the Trump administration been
charged with or convicted of a crime under the current
allegations related to the Ukraine?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Cole. Let me continue. It is my understanding that the
minority properly exercised its right under clause 2(j)(1) of
Rule 11 to demand a minority hearing. Is that the case?
Mr. Collins. That is correct.
Mr. Cole. What day did you ask for that hearing?
Mr. Collins. We asked for it on the first day of our when
we convened in the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Cole. I believe that was----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Sensenbrenner. I don't remember the dates
in front of me.
Mr. Cole. I have it right in front of me, so I will be
happy to provide that. Has that hearing been scheduled?
Mr. Collins. No. It was summarily dismissed with a long
letter which was told that, in essence, that it was dilatory. I
have never seen a minority hearing called dilatory.
Mr. Cole. On the very first day requests could have been
made.
Mr. Collins. Yeah.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Raskin, are you familiar with the following
statement: The minority's entitled to one additional day of
related hearings at which to call their own witnesses if a
majority of the minority members make their demand before the
committee's hearing is gaveled to close?
Mr. Raskin. I believe, I think, Mr. Collins invoked that at
our hearing.
Mr. Cole. So you are familiar with that?
Mr. Raskin. Yeah, I am just familiar from that. I wasn't
aware of it before this.
Mr. Cole. Statements posted on the Rules of majority
website in a document entitled, quote: ``House rules which
govern the committee hearing process,'' unquote. Based on
review of the hearing video, the minority properly presented
their request to Chairman Nadler before the original hearing
concluded. Are you familiar with a memo written by--Mr. Raskin,
I am sorry. I should have made that clear--by former Rules
Committee Chairman David Dreier regarding the application of
the House rules governing minority hearing days?
Mr. Raskin. No.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Chairman McGovern, I ask unanimous consent
that this memo be made part of the record, and we will note
that the memo states, in part, that a point of order may lie
against reported measure in which the minority's demand for a
hearing was improperly rejected.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And I will ask unanimous consent, if I can,
to also insert in the record our response to your letter, and
we can talk about that after your questioning.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Certainly appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the markup of H. Res 755, Chairman Nadler overruled
the ranking member's point of order against consideration of
the resolution and interpreting that the rule requires that the
minority hearing day occur prior to the consideration of the
relevant measure, or matter would permit the minority to
improperly delay proceedings. Were you trying to improperly
delay proceedings, Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. No. I was actually at one point in these
hearings actually have the proper following of rules.
Mr. Cole. So, again, you made this request the very first
day of hearings. Is that correct?
Mr. Collins. We did.
Mr. Cole. The hearing at which the demand was properly made
was entitled in part, quote: ``The impeachment inquiry of
Donald J. Trump,'' unquote. My colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have offered a number of reasons why Chairman
Nadler's refusal to schedule a minority hearing is appropriate,
I would like to take a moment to respond to those.
My colleagues claim that the legislative history of the
rules suggest that it was designed as a backstop to ensure the
minority gets at least one witness at a hearing. I do not find
this reason to be compelling. If that indeed was the purpose of
the rule, the plain reading of the text and reason itself would
say otherwise. While traditionally, it has been used as a
negotiating point between the majority and minority regarding
the number of witnesses, the mere fact the minority has a
witness at a hearing does not mean that there is an implicit
waiver of the right to demand a minority day hearing. There are
times in which the minority waives the right to a majority day
hearing. For example, our discussions regarding Medicare for
all hearing, we waived that right to a minority day hearing in
order to secure two more witnesses.
Mr. Collins, at any time, did you waive your rights under
clause 2(j)(1) of Rule 11?
Mr. Collins. No, I did not. And I believe that is why we
are here today, actually.
Mr. Cole. Did you request a second witness and did they
provide that second witness, and did they provide that second
witness in exchange for waiving your rights for minority daily
hearing?
Mr. Collins. No, it was not even discussed.
Mr. Cole. Okay. My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have previously quoted joint committee on an organization
of Congress in 1966 recommendations which stated that a minimum
safeguard be established for, quote, those in frequent
incidents when a witness representing the minority position are
not allotted time. Perhaps the 1966 majority was more willing
to provide witnesses to the minority; however, that is not the
case today. Witness was allotted time in this case, but not
witnesses. In other words, we didn't get anything in exchange
for our right not being exercised. And while this may have been
one reason for the adoption of the minority hearing, they
provision, it doesn't render meaningless the plain reading of
the text.
So we have spent a lot of time on this, but we think it is
very important. We simply weren't giving something that we
think by right, we should have had, and would actually subject
this to a point of order.
My colleagues also claim that Chairman Nadler is not
required to schedule the minority hearing day before the matter
is reported out of committee. You got to be kidding. In other
words, we cannot agree that the House intended that the right
for the minority hearing day can be fulfilled by scheduling a
hearing on a measure after the measure's voted out of the full
committee. That just doesn't make any sense.
So Mr. Collins, with presumed passage of these Articles of
Impeachment, isn't the minority hearing day now irrelevant?
Mr. Collins. I believe it is and I believe that is the
concern that many of us have who institutionally love this
place.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Mr. Raskin, even if Chairman Nadler didn't
believe the House rules required him to schedule a minority
hearing day prior to marking up the Articles of Impeachment, as
a member of both Judiciary Committee and Rules Committee,
wouldn't you agree that it would have been better for the
institution and the American people to prevent all this
disagreement and partisan rancor just to schedule the hearings.
It is just one day.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Again, I just learned of
it the other day when Mr. Collins raised it, and I looked at
the rule, and the rule does say that the chair of the committee
is not required to schedule the minority hearing as a condition
precedent to the continuing course of legislative action. And
having been in the minority for my first term year, I feel your
exasperation about that, that it might not happen before the
bill passes. And if we want to make a change to that rule, I
think that is absolutely something we should talk about for
future Congresses.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate that. I appreciate the sentiment
behind it, because I know it is sincere. Again, I can go on and
on on this, but we do believe, Mr. Chairman, it is a violation
of the spirit. While we appreciate your letter very much, which
was very respectful, we tried to make ours respectful when we
made the request.
The Chairman. It was.
Mr. Cole. To us, the facts are clear. Chairman Nadler
ignored a right of the minority in committee being ignored by
the Democratic majority now, and by doing so, it fundamentally
alters the tools available for the minority and all future
minorities.
So I do hope the Rules Committee will correct this
misguided decision, refrain from waiving all points of order
against the bill, and, at the very least, have the matter
debated on the House floor.
Mr. Raskin, after the adoption of H. Res. 660, and before
the Judiciary Committee's first hearing pursuant to that
resolution, Ranking Member Collins wrote seven letters to
Chairman Nadler on the subject of the committee's consideration
of impeachment. On November 12th, he wrote Chairman Nadler
regarding the manner in which the Intelligence Committee
conducted their investigation.
On November 14th, he wrote Chairman Nadler demanding that
the same transparency and fairness that existed in prior
impeachment inquiries be prioritized in the current inquiry. On
November 18th, he wrote Chairman Nadler regarding the
credibility of a particular witness, and Chairman Schiff's
coordination with certain witnesses to conceal basic and
relevant facts.
On November 21st, he wrote Chairman Nadler asking that he
obtain all documents and information from Chairman Schiff
pursuant to House Resolution 660, and its accompanying
procedures. On November 30th, the persistent Mr. Collins wrote
Chairman Nadler asking for an expanded panel and a balanced
composition of academic witnesses to opine on the subject
matter at issue during the December 4th hearing.
On December 2nd, he wrote Chairman Nadler asking for
clarity on how he plans to conduct the impeachment inquiry
referencing five previous letters he had sent to questions that
were never answered. And on December 3rd, he wrote Chairman
Nadler reminding him of his recent letters requesting the
Judiciary Committee provide the President due process with the
Intelligence Committee and Chairman Schiff did not. It is my
understanding that Chairman Nadler never provided a response to
any of these letters. To your knowledge, does Chairman Nadler
generally not respond to letters from ranking minority members?
Mr. Raskin. No, and I will concede that Mr. Collins, like
the aforementioned John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, is a
prolific letter writer. I don't know whether or not they
engaged in conversation to follow-up on any of those, but, of
course, we are all together on a daily basis pretty much, so I
can't speak for the chairman.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Well, I just want to note for the record,
when we sent a letter to my chairman, he did respond and we
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. I am turning to you next. Go ahead.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. It is regular on my committee. We
don't get a lot of answers. We got one answer on our witness
list. That was it. The other one was a discussion that I had
when I asked for another witness, and it turned into an
interesting conversation on were you asking for three to two.
Asking for ratios and all I was asking for was another witness,
and told me it was too late and that he could add--that is the
only answer I got. I appreciate the chairman is under a lot of
pressure and that timing and that calendar do kill you at
times.
Mr. Cole. I do, too. I recognize that, and that is true of
all of us, but this committee does, in a sense, have a special
responsibility to make sure the other committees operate
according to our rules, and just common courtesy.
Mr. Collins, Articles of Impeachment are based on a report
written by the Chairman Schiff and transmitted to the Judiciary
Committee, correct?
Mr. Collins. That is correct.
Mr. Cole. Did that impeachment report rely on hearsay to
support their insertion?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Cole. What explanation does Chairman Schiff provide
when asked why hearsay rather than first-hand testimony
evidence was incorrectly presented as evidence?
Mr. Collins. Well, besides his own discussion on making up
the phone call to start with, but also, he is not really
provided one because he didn't come testify on my committee.
Mr. Cole. Did you ask Chairman Nadler to invite Chairman
Schiff to come testify?
Mr. Collins. I did.
Mr. Cole. Just to be clear, you were asked to vote on
Articles of Impeachment against our Commander in Chief, based
on a report full of unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay and
you were not permitted to ask the author of the report any
questions?
Mr. Collins. That is correct. All I got was a staff member.
Mr. Cole. I would like to note for the record, Mr.
Chairman, that Chairman Schiff refused to discuss the report
with the minority; yet, he was more than willing to appear on
Fox News Sunday just 2 days ago. It is unfortunately abundantly
clear the Schiff's report is made for television documents,
rather than the result of a transparent, thorough, bipartisan
investigation. It is also worth noting for the record, and I
will ask you this, Mr. Collins, was the President represented--
this is a really odd thing for us, because generally, the
Judiciary Committee is the main committee of impeachment. That
is historically been the case. That is clearly not the case
here.
Mr. Collins. Yeah. No.
Mr. Cole. The Committee on Intelligence is the main
committee of impeachment.
Mr. Collins. That is correct.
Mr. Cole. Did the President have any counsel there?
Mr. Collins. No. Somewhere along the line, we lost our
right to be the impeachment--to work on impeachment. We got it
at the end to finish it, but we lost it.
Mr. Cole. There is a difference between window dressing and
substance. I mean, two or three hearings at the end where you
don't even question the author of the report, or you are not
allowed to question the author of the report on which
impeachment is based, the President never had representation
there. In the past, we always had representation. You were at
Judiciary. The President was there. He could ask questions. He
could--but the main place where all these things come out of,
the President was specifically excluded, and you were not in
what is supposed to be the main Committee on Judiciary, you
were not allowed to ask the author of the principal report any
questions?
Mr. Collins. Mr. Cole, you have just presented in a short
summation, which I have always admired by you, the crux of this
whole problem. By the time it got to Judiciary Committee, this
was a done deal. The train was not even on the track, the train
was past the station. They just had to run to catch up to it.
It was already decided what they wanted to do. And so, here it
is--and I have heard this argument, and you can dress this up,
window dressing, when we go to the institutional integrity
problem that we have here, when you get--when you do whatever
you think of H. Res. 660, the only place it truly provided the
opportunity for fairness for the President and the
administration was in the Judiciary Committee, because at that
point in time, they would have been able to ask for witnesses
by way, which they were turned down. All these things--but
there were never----
There is no way, and I don't care how much the majority
pretties this up, there is no way you can call calling four law
school professors, two staff members, and that is the only
hearings you have to provide any opportunity for the President
to question and get anything out of them. But I have heard from
my majority colleagues, which as a former defense attorney, I
think is pretty funny.
Well, if he is innocent, just tell him to come prove it.
When is that ever part of what we should be doing here? Really?
I don't think any of my civil libertarians in the Democratic
aisle, they ought to be just laying awake at night thinking,
How could I be associated with this? Because no matter what you
think, there is a way to do this fairly, and they could still
get the results because, by the way, they still outnumber us,
and they have been trying to do this for 3 years.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Raskin, did you have any conversation with
Chairman Schiff about the contents of the report?
Mr. Raskin. I am certain I have along the way, yes.
Mr. Cole. Really? Because nobody on our side evidently had
any conversations. To your knowledge, did Chairman Nadler have
any conversations with Chairman Schiff about the contents of
the report?
Mr. Raskin. Oh, I am sorry, when you say the contents of
the report, you mean the substance of what is in the report?
Mr. Cole. None of our people have had that opportunity.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I think as a committee, we have been
talking about the substance of it for a long time now. I had
not--I mean----
Mr. Cole. We have been talking about substance of the
report. We didn't have any opportunity to question the person
who actually authored the report.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, I see what you mean. Okay.
Mr. Cole. Either formally or informally, to my knowledge.
Mr. Raskin. Well, again, the counsel for the Intelligence
Committee came over to discuss all of the factual findings that
were in the Intelligence Committee's report.
Mr. Cole. He is not the principal author of the report, he
is the counsel for the committee, the chairman is the principal
author.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Mr. Cole. And, by the way, a fact witness as well, in many
ways.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. Well, if I could respond to this general
line of attack. House Resolution 660 had a number of
significant procedural productions for the President, even on
the House side. And as you know, the role of the House is to
act as the grand jury and the prosecutor, and the actual trial
takes place over in the Senate; but still, we had very
significant procedural protections, including we invited the
President and his counsel to attend all hearings. We provided
the President's counsel the opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses and object to the admissibility of testimony, and we
provided the President's counsel the opportunity to make
presentations of evidence before the full Judiciary Committee,
including the chance to call witnesses.
Now the President chose not to avail himself of any of
those opportunities, so it reminds me of the President
blockading all these witnesses and saying, you don't have
enough people with direct first-hand evidence of what I did.
Mr. Cole. First of all, were those rights provided only in
Judiciary Committee? Because you are not the principal
committee of impeachment here. That is just the reality. You
are sort of the final stop. So did the President get those
rights in the Judiciary--excuse me, in the Intelligence
Committee?
Mr. Raskin. I believe not. I would have to go back and
check, but----
Mr. Cole. I can assure you not.
Mr. Raskin. Well, then, let me explain--you may not accept
this analogy, but here is the analogy that we proceeded on,
because this is the first modern impeachment where the fact
finder was the House of Representatives itself instead of a
special counsel or independent counsel.
When the special counsel and independent counsel did their
work in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, all of that was
closed-door depositions, because you don't want the witnesses
to be coordinating their testimony and so on. That is how
prosecutorial investigations take place. The House Committee on
Intelligence was our fact-finding committee, that is why they
performed closed door depositions because they wanted to avoid
witnesses coaching each other and coordinating their testimony.
Mr. Cole. I will give Mr. Collins an opportunity to
respond.
Mr. Collins. We are driving down an interesting hole here.
I also am ranking member of the same committee that said early
on when we are, quote, doing impeachment, that if the President
saw something he didn't want, he could write us a letter just
like everybody else in the world. This was actually said, that
he could write us a letter. That would be how he would be taken
care of.
But let me hit a couple of these things. The White House
still has not received all the documents it is supposed to
have. We are here doing impeachment right now, and they still
haven't received all the documents. I still have not received
all the documents from the Intelligence Committee. That is in
direct violation of H. 660. I don't know how we get around
that, but we can pretend, we can paint pretty faces and say it
doesn't happen. But also, here is another thing, the staff
member that they sent, Mr. Goldman, would not testify or answer
questions on the methodology on how they actually did their
investigation. And even in an egregious violation in their own
report, where they named Members of Congress in their phone
records, he would not actually say who ordered that, was it
Chairman Schiff or him.
Now I have always defaulted as I think you would, Mr. Cole,
to the member with the pen, which would be Mr. Schiff, but Mr.
Goldman actually sat there and said we would not discuss the
methodology of the investigation.
This has got to be just the most amazing thought when you
come to an impeachment when you are trying to give due process
to the President of the United States, and these are all
ignored, and we can pretty it up any way we want to, but it is
just not buying. This is not right. And look, you will impeach
him. You have the votes. But at the end of the day, is it worth
the integrity of the House? I don't think so.
Mr. Cole. Well, during the staff presentation of the
evidence, Ranking Member Collins asked how the investigation,
he just made his point, was conducted, resulted in the Schiff
report, never got an answer. Mr. Raskin, the House Intelligence
Committee Democrats released phone records, including four
phone calls by Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes, how
did the committee Democrats get those phone records?
Mr. Raskin. I am going to have to ask staff counsel to pass
me a note on that. I will say----
Mr. Cole. But staff counsel didn't answer that. Is that
correct, Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. No, he wouldn't answer the question.
Mr. Cole. So telling us to go ask somebody who didn't
answer the question.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I understand that we forcefully
represented that no member of the House of Representatives and
no member of the press was targeted with any investigative
resources.
Mr. Collins. Oh, Mr. Cole, really? I respect Mr. Raskin,
but I am not even sure how he got that statement out without
stumbling over everything. You cannot say that you take--
talking about numbers, at some point, somebody with a ranking
member's phone number had to go down through there and look for
the ranking member's phone number. They had to go down and look
for Mr. Solomon's phone number. This is what they don't want to
deal with. This is how bad it is screwed up.
And I know they want to gloss over process, I know they
want to gloss over how they did their investigation, because of
time and the calendar are terrible masters. I have repeated it
over and over, but this is what we are talking about and they
wouldn't even talk about it. So to say that nobody was doing
this intentionally is just not being factually accurate. It
doesn't happen on its own.
Mr. Cole. I would ask both of you this question: Who
specifically matched the phone numbers of Ranking Member Nunes,
and what method did they use?
Mr. Raskin. I have no idea. I just one, if I could say, Mr.
Cole, in response to the whole line of questions----
Mr. Cole. Certainly.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The President of the United States
was given the opportunity to call any witnesses he wanted, any
of the 17 witnesses who appeared before the House Intelligence
Committee and Oversight and Foreign Affairs could have been
called by the President. He would have had the opportunity to
cross-examine any of them. But, of course, he didn't want to,
because all of them essentially told different pieces of the
exact same story, which is the President executed this
shakedown of President Zelensky to come and get involved in our
campaign at the expense of former Vice President Biden.
Mr. Collins. That just doesn't hold water when you look at
our--again, I can't say this enough. It goes back to our
calendar and our clock. How is it possible when I talked to the
chairman himself, sent him letters asking, you know, when we
were going to get witnesses when he didn't even build the
witness day in for ourselves. He didn't even build in the
calendar a time to accept one of our witnesses, much less the
White House witnesses, so don't tell me that he could have sent
witnesses and we would have accepted it. It was never on the
calendar.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you this, because these numbers--who
specifically ordered the inclusion of these phone records in
the Schiff report?
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Ranking Member, I am afraid I can't answer
these questions. I just don't know.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Well, undoubtedly, it was the Intelligence
Committee carrying out what seemed to be a political vendetta
against another Member of Congress.
Mr. Cole. Either of you think it is proper to have the
names of individuals swept up in call logs who are not the
target of criminal investigations to have their names and
numbers----
Mr. Collins. No. It is nothing but a political drive-by,
and I brought that out. They could have done it several
different ways. They could have said member one, it could have
been person one, they could have done it any other way, but
they chose to actually use the names. This was a political hit
job.
Mr. Cole. Give you an opportunity to respond, Mr. Raskin.
Do you think it was appropriate for those numbers and names to
have been released?
Mr. Raskin. Again----
Mr. Cole. They were not the targets of the investigations,
they were just swept up.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. I was not involved in that part of it,
and so forgive me, again----
Mr. Cole. Again, I understand.
Ms. Scanlon. Will the gentleman yield for a minute? We did
have testimony on this.
Mr. Cole. No, I'm not going to yield my time right now.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I mean, there was testimony.
Mr. Cole. You will have your time shortly.
Mr. Collins. Yeah. Ms. Scanlon, the testimony was, I am not
going to tell you.
Mr. Cole. Okay. How many times, Mr. Collins, has Schiff
report or hearsay statements been used as evidence?
Mr. Collins. Hundreds.
Mr. Cole. Well, actually only 54. It may seem like----
Mr. Collins. When you take off one person talking off
another person off another person, it goes up.
Mr. Cole. How many times in the Schiff report or news
reports the only evidence supporting factual assertions?
Mr. Collins. I am sorry. Repeat the question. I had someone
in my ear.
Mr. Cole. Okay. How many times in the Schiff report or news
reports the only evidence supporting factual assertions?
Mr. Collins. It would have been the main factual assertion
was Mr. Sondland, one.
Mr. Cole. About 16 different times. Mr. Raskin, it is my
understanding Chairman Schiff did not transmit the evidence
collected during his committee's investigation to the Judiciary
Committee until Friday, December 6th. Does that comport with
your memory?
Mr. Raskin. That is correct.
Mr. Cole. Okay. So Judiciary Committee majority, did it
have access to any evidence beyond the actual report from the
Intelligence Committee until the weekend before the Judiciary
Committee actually considered Articles of Impeachment?
Mr. Raskin. Well, I don't remember exactly when all of the
deposition statements were released publicly. I think some of
them had been released publicly before that time, but we could
go back and check the exact chronology.
Mr. Cole. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. There are certain members of the Judiciary
Committee who are also members of other----
Mr. Cole. Certainly understand. It is my understanding that
Chairman Schiff did not transmit all the material collected by
the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee. Is that
the case?
Mr. Collins. It is still true to this day.
Mr. Cole. So do not agree, and I would ask this of both of
you, the House Judiciary Committee should have had the time and
opportunity to review all that material collected by the
Intelligence Committee? Did you both have that time and
opportunity?
Mr. Collins. We did not. It is a direct violation of House
Resolution 660.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Cole, all I can tell you is that the vast
amount of what we ended up getting was what was being produced,
released publicly along the way. I know the Intelligence
Committee made the commitment to release those depositions,
those deposition statements publicly. And so, I have considered
it a very fair and transparent process. I don't think I got to
see a single thing through the Judiciary Committee that I was
not just seeing come out and being released by the Intelligence
Committee.
In any event, all of it is in the final report. It is there
for all of America to see, and I don't want us to lose sight of
the big picture.
Mr. Cole. We really don't know if it is all there in the
final report. If you haven't seen them yourself----
Mr. Collins. We don't. No, we do not know. That is a
statement that is assuming facts not in evidence. We don't
know--this is the old classic case of evidence being given from
a prosecutor in a trial. We don't know what we have not seen.
We do know what--we know a few things we know have not been
transferred, but we also have heard of other things that have
not being transferred, and it can't be in the report if it has
not been transferred because then we could at least say it was
in the report.
Mr. Cole. Let me move on to the articles themselves.
Because in my view, we have established Intelligence Committee
process was substantially flawed and procedurally defective.
That is my view, I underline. Judiciary Committee failed to
create an evidentiary record sufficient to justify moving
forward on Articles of Impeachment, basically relied on the
Intelligence Committee, again, where the President was
unrepresented. That violated rules of the House, in my view,
and the entire circus has been politically motivated from the
very beginning.
On the obstruction of Congress charge, it is uncommon for
the--excuse me--is it uncommon and I ask this of both of you,
uncommon for the executive branch to push back against requests
for information from Congress?
Mr. Raskin. Well, no, it is not uncommon for the executive
branch to push back on the production of this or that document
or the timing of a particular visit. What was absolutely
breathtaking in its unprecedented and radical nature was this
President's determination to shut down all discovery. They did
not produce a single document to us, Mr. Cole, that was
subpoenaed in this process. And the President essentially
ordered everyone in the executive branch not to cooperate with
us.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask--excuse me. I don't want to cut you
off.
Mr. Raskin. I think that is a dramatic escalation in kind
and in degree over anything that has ever been seen before, and
that includes Richard Nixon, who, I think, tried to block seven
or eight particular requests like the Watergate tapes, and that
in itself became part of the case against him for abuse of
power. But, you know, President Trump makes Richard Nixon look
like a little leaguer when it comes to obstruction.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Collins, same thing. Do you think it is
unusual for an administration to push back against
congressional subpoenas?
Mr. Collins. No, it is common.
Mr. Cole. If it is pretty common, do you believe it is a
high crime or misdemeanor to assert privileges in response to
congressional requests for subpoenas?
Mr. Collins. Not--I want to go back and just give a little
bit of history since we have had history lessons here from Mr.
Raskin, and even in our own committee this year, what has been
really interesting is, there has been a total just walk toward
impeachment the whole time, but what was interesting in our
committee is, we would send subpoenas, or we would, you know,
again, we have sent out letters and stuff and we never followed
up on. But also one of the interesting things about our
committee was, we never engaged, for the most part, with the
agencies for documents.
But what I thought was really interesting was, Mr. Schiff,
in the Intelligence Committee, while we were still struggling
during Mueller and some other stuff, Mr. Schiff actually
negotiated with the Department of Justice and actually got
documents released that our committee couldn't. The House
Foreign Affairs Committee, Elliott Engel, who is one of the
quieter chairmans, but one of the more effective, in my
personal opinion, from the across the aisle, had engaged all
year with administration on ways to get documents. It is a
matter of how you go about it and to say that this is just
unheard of is just not right.
Mr. Cole. Again, I would ask this to both of you. I think
this gets to the point you are making. There is a normal
accommodations process for resolving inner branch disputes
between the House and the executive branch. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Cole. Okay. And that process really hasn't occurred
here. I think, Mr. Collins, that is what you are telling me. It
doesn't fit neatly into the Speaker's impeachment of Christmas
timeline, to borrow your way of looking at it. We have not gone
to court----
Mr. Collins. No, they haven't.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. On these things. We are not really
engaged. This is a normal give and take, where actually both
sides tend to avoid, quote, you know, an exchange where they
might go to court and lose something, but all that has been set
aside. We haven't had any process like that, have we?
Mr. Collins. No. Mr. Cole, I will even point out something
that I disagreed with, Mr. McGahn. There has been a court case
in which we have lost in which Mr. McGahn--and it is still
being appealed, but it does show you the process or don't want
it to work as fast as you want it to work. And I think that is
where we have to go back to in this whole process. So, no, even
the one that they had that was actually one of the members of
the administration contested. They just withdrew their
subpoena, withdrew it from the lawsuit, because they just
didn't want to deal with it.
Mr. Cole. I know Mr. Raskin would have a different view and
if he wants to respond, he would. But I want to ask you
specifically, Mr. Collins. Is there any actual evidence that
the pause on the Ukrainian assistance was for the President's
improper personal political benefit, or could he have had other
objectives? That is directed to you, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. I am sorry. I apologize.
Mr. Cole. It is all right. I am throwing a lot of questions
at you. Is there any actual evidence that the pause on the
Ukrainian assistance was for the President's improper personal
political benefit, or might he have had other reasons for
withholding aid?
Mr. Collins. He had plenty of other reasons. And I think
part of it is the law itself, which says even though it was
certified, it was the President's call to make sure that there
was no corruption in where aid is given. There was other
countries during that time was aid withheld. I think from our
appropriator standpoint, Mr. Cole, you will also understand
this aid was not even scheduled to go out. It had to be done by
September 30. It actually went out early, if you look at it
from that time frame. So there were other reasons. There was a
recent poll, just to show you--and, again, we talk about this a
little bit from our side, the corruption in the Ukraine was so
prevalent, a recent poll said 68 percent of normal, just
everyday Ukrainians had said that they had bribed a public
official in the past year.
There was reasons for this to be discussed and reasons to
go at it, but I also want to point out one last thing on this
other issue. Fast and Furious, infamous issue with the Obama
administration. It was 7 months from first subpoena to first
documents, 7 months. That doesn't fit the time line here.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. So this is an essential point that you raise
right now, and I think that there is not any credible evidence
from any of the witnesses, or anything in the record to suggest
that the President was actually trying to ferret out corruption
as opposed to impose a corrupt scheme on the President of
Ukraine. Let's start with this:
In 2017, in 2018, the President could have raised
corruption in withholding military and security assistance to
Ukraine and never did. Then in 2019, he did. What changed?
Well, Joe Biden was running for President and the Presidential
campaign was much on his mind.
Mr. Raskin. The President removed Ambassador Yovanovitch,
and we have learned today from Mr. Giuliani that he was
involved with the campaign by Parnas and Fruman to smear
Ambassador Yovanovitch to say there was something wrong with
her.
In fact, when she was--according to all the testimony we
had and all the public information we have, she was one of the
leading anticorruption ambassadors that the United States has
on Earth, and they sabotaged her. They undercut her. They
subjected her to an unprecedented smear campaign that led
several of the other witnesses to protest that the State
Department was not standing by its own ambassador.
And they got rid of her, as Mr. Giuliani said in today's
paper, because she was getting in the way of the investigations
they wanted. And what investigations were those? Those into
Biden, those into the 2016 conspiracy theory. So that is pretty
clear. It had nothing to do with corruption.
Moreover, if you go to the July 25 telephone call,
President Trump never raised the word ``corruption'' once, but
he did talk about Joe Biden three times. So we didn't hear
corruption, corruption, corruption; we heard Biden, Biden,
Biden. That was the favor that we were looking for, right? He
wanted the President of Ukraine to come over and say he was
investigating the Bidens.
Look, that is unrefuted and uncontradicted in the record. I
don't think we should be trying to pull the wool over America's
eyes about this. Let's not play make-believe. If we want to say
it is okay for the President to do this stuff, then let's just
go ahead and say it. But let's not claim that he was involved
in some kind of anticorruption crusade at the time. I think
America knows that we can't take that seriously.
This President cut anticorruption funding to Ukraine by 50
percent. The chairman of his campaign, Paul Manafort, was on
the take, he was on the dole for millions of dollars to a
former corrupt President in Ukraine. President Zelensky, who
was getting shaken down, was the reformer. He was the product
of the revolution of dignity in 2014, which tried to bring some
democracy and tried to bring some fairness and anticorruption
efforts to Ukraine. Giuliani and his gang that can't shoot
straight, they went over there because they wanted to take
advantage of the situation and go back to the corrupt forces in
Ukraine.
So this President had one thing in mind: His own reelection
and how President Zelensky could help him. And you can see that
if you look at the phone conversation that Ambassador Sondland
had with the President the day after July 25.
On July 26, he had this phone conversation that was
partially overheard by David Holmes in the State Department,
and he hears him tell the President that Zelensky will do
whatever you want, he is going to do the investigations, he
loves your ass and so on.
And then he gets off the phone, and then he tells him what,
that what the President is interested in is the big stuff
relating to the President's own political ambitions, like the
Bidens. He is not interested in the war with Russia. And I
would say, obviously, he is not interested in corruption. He
was interested in the Bidens and that was it.
Now, either we think that is in appropriate and proper
thing for the President of the United States to be doing or we
think it is wrong. And some of us believe it rises to the level
of an impeachable offense.
Mr. Cole. I want to give Mr. Collins a chance to respond.
Before I do, President Zelensky, any Ukrainian official ever
tell you they felt shaken down?
Mr. Raskin. Well, there is lots of evidence in the record--
--
Mr. Cole. That is not what I asked. I said, have you got
any statement----
Mr. Raskin. No, I have never spoken to him.
Mr. Cole. Okay. And is there any statement on the record? I
don't think so.
Mr. Collins. No. There is statements on the record. The
record argues we wasn't pressured, we wasn't part of anything.
I wouldn't be a part of that. Those are the statements from Mr.
Zelensky.
Mr. Raskin. Well----
Mr. Collins. You know, don't let--at this point----
Mr. Cole. I want to give Mr. Collins a chance to respond,
and then we will come back to you.
Mr. Raskin. There are contemporaneous emails where--and
somebody will pass me the exact language, but essentially where
Mr. Yermak, who is the top right-hand man to the President of
Ukraine, says that the President does not want to be treated as
a political pawn in domestic American politics. For several
weeks they were doing everything in their power to try to get
out from underneath the straitjacket of this scheme that was
coming--that was bearing down on them from every different
direction.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Wow, that is a story right there. Maybe this
is good we are doing this, because we are having to expand the
story to fit our narrative here. And because, you know, if you
don't--let's don't play make-believe. There is nothing--if they
had something in the phone call, it would have been in the
Articles of Impeachment. They don't. Because at the end of the
day, there is no direct evidence of what they are trying to
spin here, and that was that there was a pressuring or a quid
pro quo or however you want to put it to Mr. Zelensky.
The problem here is, is that Mark Sandy testified under
oath that there was a wholesale investigation going into
foreign aid this year. So you can go back and quote 2017, 2018
all you want, but this year, because of the problems, he
testified that there is a wholesale investigation on the
foreign aid everywhere. But if you go--President Trump actually
raised this with Mr. Poroshenko in 2017, and that was testified
too by Mr. Volker and the former Ambassador.
So when you look at this, there is no direct evidence of
what was said here, and to try and then come back and put this
into a different perspective--and, again, going back to Mr.
Yermak, who Mr. Yermak said there was no connection between--
ever discussed between the aid and an investigation. And also,
if they were trying to get out from under it so hard, I guess
if we are looking at--because they never did anything to get
the aid. They never did anything to get the aid, if they were
that scared something was wrong.
Mr. Cole. I will try to bring this to conclusion because--
and I know there will be a difference of opinion here, so you
certainly both can respond. Contrary to my claims that--or to
my friends' claims across the aisle, Mr. Collins, do you think
the Democratic majority effectively denied the administration a
meaningful opportunity to participate in this proceeding?
Mr. Collins. They didn't effectively; they did.
Mr. Cole. Okay. On October 30, the Rules Committee held our
original jurisdiction markup on H. Res. 660, and there were
many serious concerns from our side of the dais about the
damage this unprecedented process could have to the
institution.
The Republican members of the committee were repeatedly
assured that, quote, the President has been afforded all kinds
of rights before the Judiciary Committee--we have heard that
assertion again today--and that this would be an open and
transparent process. Despite the fact that we received the text
of the resolution a mere 24 hours earlier, did not have a
single amendment made in order.
Mr. Collins, was the administration provided the
opportunity to participate in the Intelligence Committee
proceedings? Because in my mind----
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. They have basically supplanted the
Judiciary as the principal committee of impeachment.
Mr. Collins. They were, and they definitely want it in
Judiciary. And they can--it was put into the record that they
should have been, but the problem is the actual way it played
out in the scheduling in Judiciary Committee made it nowhere
possible that they could even--if all of a sudden they, you
know, wanted it, there was no time in the calendar for it.
Mr. Cole. So I will just end with this. I mean, I
certainly--well, I will let my friend respond if you wanted to.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. You are very kind, Mr. Cole.
When Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, he said that
this request for a favor was not in any sense a friendly
request; it was a demand in the context of the hundreds of
millions of dollars that were being held up, the request for
the White House meeting, and so on.
For weeks, the Ukrainians pushed back on the demand of the
President, his agents, and advised U.S. officials they did not
want to be, quote, an instrument in Washington domestic
reelection politics. You recall the testimony of Dr. Fiona
Hill, who said that this was a domestic political errand that
the President's team was on in order to extract this commitment
from President Zelensky to come and give this interview.
And, in fact, they had publicly announced--or they were
going to publicly announce investigations in an interview that
President Zelensky had scheduled on CNN, but then Ukraine
canceled the interview a few days after the President's scheme
was publicly exposed and the military aid got released. In
other words, when the whole scheme blew up, then President
Zelensky felt that he could be free from this obligation to
come forward and say he was investigating the Bidens.
Mr. Cole. Well, with all due respect, the President was
telling United States Senators in August that the aid was
probably going to be released long before, you know, there was
any notion about a whistleblower or anything else. Senator
Johnson from Wisconsin has testified to that fact.
Mr. Raskin. Well----
Mr. Cole. So--and, again, with all due respect, I mean, the
last administration for 4 years didn't provide any military
assistance to Ukraine. The idea that 55 days was somehow life
and death in this situation, particularly during a period of
transition from one government to another, you know, it just--
pretty thin gruel to impeach a President of the United States
on.
Mr. Chairman, you know, with all due respect to my friends
here, who I admire both and who I think have been very helpful
in their testimony and, as always, straight and forthright, my
view, Chairman Schiff ought to be the person answering
questions in front of the Rules Committee. It is his report.
I don't blame the President for passing on the opportunity
not to go before the Judiciary for what was clearly going to be
perfunctory and provide a sort of window dressing of legitimacy
to this process. So the claim that he was given meaningful or
consistent opportunities treated anywhere like previous
administration, I just don't think holds up when you are denied
an opportunity to participate where the principal action is at
and then given a last-minute thing.
And so, again, I am going to yield back my time, Mr.
Chairman. I want to thank both of our distinguished members,
former and current, of the Rules Committee, for coming up here
and providing us their insight and their testimony. It is great
to work with both of you, and I appreciate your service to your
districts and to the Congress and to the country.
I yield back.
The Chairman. So I want to thank the gentleman for his
questioning. I said I would be liberal with the time.
Mr. Cole. You were.
The Chairman. You are going to make me into a conservative
by the end of this hearing.
But let me just do a couple of things here. One is I want
to ask unanimous consent, without objection, to insert into the
record an October 23 New York Times article entitled, ``Ukraine
Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump
Defense.''
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I also want to make a couple of comments
about the minority day witness issue. I did send a letter to my
colleagues on the Rules Committee. We made it part of the
record. Mr. Nadler has confirmed that he would work with the
minority to schedule their hearing day on constitutional
grounds of impeachment, notwithstanding the fact he already----
Mr. Collins. When?
The Chairman [continuing]. Allowed a minority witness. And
we looked at the history of this whole rule, and basically it
was designed to ensure that the minority was not shut out of
witnesses, that they were not completely shut out of hearings,
as had occurred in the past.
And the minority did get a witness. He was there. But I
would just say that this notion that somehow the minority has
this superpower ability to be able to, not only name the
witnesses, but set the day and to be able to slow down progress
on any bill, if that were the case, having been in the minority
for 8 years, we would have used it to stop most of the agenda
that my Republican friends have put forward.
I will make that letter available to anybody who is
interested.
Mr. Collins. Mr. McGovern.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. You made a
statement, and I am not sure how you were wording it, if it was
a paraphrase or not, but I was never promised by Mr. Nadler
that he would work with us on the minority hearing day from now
to infinity. I mean, he just basically said, no, we are not
having it. He did not.
The Chairman. Well, my understanding is that he said that
in committee. Maybe I am wrong, but we could find that out
during the break.
Mr. Collins. Well, we have had a little issue of
consultation lately, so----
The Chairman. We will look that up, and by the time we get
back, we will get you that answer.
But let me again remind everybody why we are here today,
because it is easy to get--caught up in the weeds and to talk
about process. I just was handed it. Nadler, and it says, I am
willing to work with the minority to schedule the hearing. I
will pass that on to the gentleman if he would like to see it.
Mr. Collins. We have consultation issues in our committee,
and sending that and not talking about it and taking all of our
witnesses out is not true. And putting it into letter is fine,
but it is still not true.
Mr. Hastings. Well, it is what he said.
The Chairman. Right. So, you know, I will ask that to be
part of the record as well.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Look, let me just remind everybody why we are
here. As I said over and over again, the President abused his
power of office for his own personal gain and obstructed a
congressional investigation to look into that conduct. And we
all know how he did it. He tried to shake down the Government
of Ukraine to basically get dirt on his political opponent to
help him in the upcoming 2020 election, and he engaged in a
systemic pattern of denying any documents of any cooperation
with Congress. That is obstruction of Congress.
And, Mr. Collins, you kept on saying something that I
actually agree with. You talk about how the clock and the
calendar is important. You know, from my vantage point and from
the way I look at what has happened here, it is important,
because I believe, as Mr. Raskin stated at the beginning of his
testimony, that there was a crime in progress.
I mean, we have an election coming up in less than a year,
and the President is openly trying to encourage foreign
interference in that election. I mean, that is big--that should
shock everybody, not only in this committee, in this Chamber,
all throughout this country. It is just wrong. It is so wrong.
And so we will continue this hearing. We just had votes,
and we will recess and come back at the beginning of the last
vote, where we will then turn to Mr. Hastings.
The Rules Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Rules Committee will come to order.
We welcome back our two witnesses. And at this time, I am
happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from Florida,
Alcee Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like very much
to yield to our colleague, Ms. Scanlon, for some questions that
she may have of our witnesses.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
I just wanted to clarify one thing. We had a line of
questioning from Mr. Cole right before we broke, and it had to
do whether or not there had been subpoenas issued for Ranking
Member Nunes' phone records, and, you know, there seemed to be
some confusion from our two witnesses here.
But I recalled the testimony that we had in Judiciary,
which was that, in fact, no subpoenas had been issued for any
Member of Congress or for any journalist, that the Intel
Committee has subpoenaed metadata, so just call records, not
actually phone taps, of four people who had been involved in
this scheme to abuse the power of office and smear Ambassador
Yovanovitch.
After each of those people had been subpoenaed
individually--so that was Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman, and
Sondland--two have been indicted for crimes now related to this
investigation. So once those phone records were brought in,
patterns were noticed around particular events, and that was
when Ranking Member Nunes' phone number was identified. It
wasn't that his number was sought. He just happened to be in
conversation with the co-conspirators there.
So if people are interested in that, in addition to the
testimony we heard in Judiciary, that information can be found
in the Intel report that was filed on pages 45 through 47, and
then at footnote 76, which is on page 155. And I would just
note particularly there it says: The committee did not subpoena
the call detail records for any Member of Congress or staff.
So, you know, to the extent that we were getting distracted
by some notion that people were trying to improperly
investigate Members of Congress, I think we should put that to
bed and call it out for being a distraction and just not the
truth.
Mr. Raskin, did that----
Mr. Collins. Can I answer?
Ms. Scanlon [continuing]. Refresh your recollection on any
of that?
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Scanlon, thank you very much for adding the
details. My primary recollection of our conversation about that
was precisely this, that the Intelligence Committee targeted no
Member of Congress, it targeted no journalist, it did not
direct subpoenas against any of them, and I believe that the
names that came up came up in the normal course of standard
investigatory procedure. So there is nothing untoward there
that I can see.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. And also, there was testimony from Mr.
Nunes--or not testimony, questioning of Ambassador Taylor by
Mr. Nunes indicating that, in fact, he had been phoning folks
in the Ukraine, right, so he had acknowledged that?
Mr. Raskin. That he, Mr. Nunes, had?
Ms. Scanlon. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. Yes, I believe that is in the transcript
as well. I mean, he basically has said that he was conducting a
kind of investigation of his own into what happened.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Okay. Hopefully, that puts that to bed.
And I would yield back to Mr. Hastings.
The Chairman. With that, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Hastings. Yes, I would certainly yield to Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Yeah, I appreciate it.
It doesn't put it--I appreciate the gentlelady bringing it
up, but it had nothing to do with the question that was asked,
and it doesn't put it to bed at all. I have always acknowledged
that they were properly done subpoenas. I am still an
institutionalist. I believe that subpoena power of the
committees actually work.
And I have never denied that the committees--in fact, I
said it in the Judiciary Committee that day to Mr. Goldman.
Never questioned the committee process, never questioned the
subpoena, and also acknowledged there was never a direct
subpoena on any Members of Congress.
What I did say and what I will continue to say was, even--
and the gentlelady just acknowledged it, was that when they
started going through the phone records, they looked at people
they called and then someone somehow had the ranking member's
phone number, and they collaborated that with that phone call
that is working.
Now, even to that point, I could say, okay. But my problem
comes is the way it was actually put in, is what I will
consider a political hit job in the report itself, when it
could have been done many different ways, because it was not
applicable notice to this Articles of Impeachment, it was not
anything that was furthering a narrative, except to, frankly,
look at getting back to the ranking member and others. They
could have put that in, as we have seen in other reports,
Congress Member One, Congress Member Two.
So nothing that was--supposedly that was said--and I
appreciate the gentlelady bringing this up, but I never
questioned the subpoenas, never questioned that. My question
was who is actually--it was said to actually start putting
these together and then put them in the report.
Mr. Raskin. If I could just say, I just bristle a little
bit at the suggestion that Chairman Schiff and the Intelligence
Committee did anything wrong there. I was a State assistant
attorney general for a couple years, and my recollection is
that if you get a table of telephone records and other numbers
come up, you do your due diligence on all of the other numbers
to see who is involved, and what we are talking about is
possibly conspiratorial activity.
And so that was the way in which those numbers surfaced,
and I think they did their regular due diligence on it, and
that is how those callers were identified.
Mr. Woodall. Could I ask my friend to yield for just a
moment?
Mr. Hastings. I have the time, and I will yield to Mr.
Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you so much, Mr. Hastings. I appreciate
that.
I did not know that I understood what you just said. I
thought you said your experience in the State prosecutor's
office led you to release the kinds of names of co-conspirators
as those things were discovered. Certainly, you are not
suggesting that Mr. Nunes was a co-conspirator in any way,
shape, or form?
Mr. Raskin. No, no, not at all. No, not at all.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you.
I thank my friend from Florida.
Mr. Hastings. Are you finished, Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. Absolutely.
Mr. Hastings. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, when we took our recess to vote, you had just
made what I considered to be a very profound statement that is
short, and it is that the President's actions, in your words,
were so wrong. And it is hard for me to believe that all of us
here and in the previous committee, and as this matter
proceeds, do not all understand that. But the dais pretty much
cashed.
In this institution, we are fond of saying, after everybody
is exhausted and talking about whatever the issue is, that
everybody has said everything that needs to be said, but I
haven't said it yet. And that is what is going to happen with
every one of the members that come after me.
But what is disturbing to me is that we are like we are in
alternative universes, not just here in the Rules Committee,
but in the Judiciary Committee, in the Intelligence Committee,
where I served for 8 years, and really in America. And it is
regrettable that my friends, the Republicans, are not
addressing or defending the President's actions.
What you are doing is talking about the process. I might
add footnote right there, you haven't seen nothing yet if you
listen to Lindsey Graham and the majority Leader McConnell
about how, if and when this matter gets to them, how they are
going to act. How dare somebody say that they aren't going to
pretend that they are fair, and the other one is going to
collaborate with the White House.
So I would assume that the managers that are Democrats,
when they get over there, they are going to be talking about
process. Because if you are talking about unfairness, just the
mere fact that both of those people who should recuse
themselves, in my judgment, made those kinds of statements
indicates where they are.
But to turn back to you, Mr. Chairman, about something
being wrong with what the President did. When I was a boy, and
that is 83 years ago, my dad, who never went to school a day in
his life, when I had crucial issues over the course of time,
both as a child, little boy, and he lived long enough to see me
become a lawyer, and the difficulties along the way in college
and what have you, he would always say to me that right don't
wrong nobody. And the fact of the matter is that what we are
doing here is right.
Let me just excise one thing. So-called corruption--and,
Mr. President--Mr. Chairman, with your permission, just to make
sure that this record is complete, not that this transcript has
not been released, but I ask unanimous consent that the
unclassified version of the telephone conversation of the
President with President Zelensky of Ukraine be made a part of
the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hastings. I am going to come back to that.
We find ourselves here today discussing two Articles of
Impeachment against President Donald John Trump because of his
disregard of and disrespect for the United States Constitution.
President Trump withheld American taxpayer money that was
appropriated by their duly elected Members of Congress, all of
us, to help our ally fight a hot war.
It would be one thing if we, as we do help around the
world, if this was not an enemy of the United States, a corrupt
enemy of the United States, Russia. I don't have to ask anybody
about it. I have been there. I saw the changes that took place.
I monitored elections there. So I know that corruption is rife
in that country.
And yet, we witness last week, Sergey Lavrov, who I know,
coming here in the Oval Office with the President smiling. And
you all aren't prepared to defend that kind of action with
reference to corruption? I find it strange that you are in that
position. But Trump withheld his taxpayer money to help our
ally fight a hot war against Russia so he, President Trump,
could obtain a personal political benefit.
And I am going to get back to this document I ask UC on at
some point to talk about that. And just in case folks think
that the facts, which my colleagues will not discuss, are a bit
too tenuous, a bit too hazy, please remember that on October 3,
2019, President Trump went out on the White House lawn, stood
in front of a bunch of reporters and television cameras, and
advised President Zelensky to announce the investigation. For
good measure, he then encouraged China to also start an
investigation into the Biden family.
Not long afterwards, on October 17, 2019, President Trump
allowed his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to hold a press
conference in which Mr. Mulvaney not only admitted that a quid
pro quo existed, but that we should get over it because that is
just the way things are, he said, when it comes to foreign
affairs and apparently foreign countries being lobbied to
meddle in our elections. Mick is dead wrong. That is not how we
exercise our policy in this country.
I am no world expert, but I began my career here 27 years
ago on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was appointed by Newt
Gingrich, along with Doug B. Rider to study the reversion of
Hong Kong and Macau to Mainland China. I went with Donald Payne
often to 26 countries in Africa. And over the course of time, I
became the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and if you
can say that, you ought to be president of that organization.
But there are 57 countries in that organization, including
Russia, and Canada and the United States make it a
transatlantic organization. I went to Europe 36 times during a
2-year period to most of those countries. I made it to 47 of
those 57 countries, and I swore in Montenegro as the 57th
country in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
I think I know a little bit more about the world than Mick
Mulvaney, and that is not the way President Bush, President
Clinton, President Obama, that is not the way they conducted
policy at all. Well, he says get over it. I for one will not
accept that vision of this great country, let alone get over
it.
Mr. Chairman, also consider an article of obstruction of
Congress today we are, and I believe the record shows the
administration's obstruction to be beyond debate. And you have
demonstrably shown lots of that obstruction. And while many of
our members don't want to bring it up, I cannot--when I was ill
at home for a protracted period of time, I read every line of
the Mueller report, and the Mueller report clearly reflects
that the President obstructed justice long before we get to
this particular matter that we are dealing with.
We are stewards of the House of Representatives, and to not
have all Members of this body object in the most strenuous
terms to this administration's complete obstruction of our
clear constitutional prerogative to conduct an impeachment
inquiry is, to me, truly disappointing. To not object, to not
draw the line here is to do a great disservice not only to
those who came before us, but those who will come after us.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for Mr.
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin, did President Trump solicit Ukraine's
interference in our country's 2020 election?
Mr. Raskin. It is overwhelmingly clear that he did.
Mr. Hastings. Did President Trump solicit this foreign
interference in order to obtain a personal political benefit?
Mr. Raskin. He absolutely did.
Mr. Hastings. Did President Trump condition the release of
taxpayer money appropriated by Congress on President Zelensky
announcing an investigation into President Trump's political
opponent?
Mr. Raskin. All of the evidence we have says that he did.
Mr. Hastings. Did President Trump's actions undermine the
national security of the United States and that of a key ally,
namely Ukraine?
Mr. Raskin. I believe that they did. Ukraine had been
invaded and attacked by Russia. There had been more than 13,000
casualties in that war. The President was desperate--the
President of Ukraine was desperate to get security assistance,
and that was provided by Congress. Congress decided that this
money was a good investment to defend a besieged ally, that we
needed to contain the continuing imperial designs of Vladimir
Putin to expand Russian power and to control nations in the
neighborhood there.
Mr. Hastings. On January 20, 2017, Donald John Trump took
an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States. Has, in your opinion, the President violated
that oath?
Mr. Raskin. I think this was an essential betrayal of his
oath of office when he decided to try and coerce a foreign
government to get involved in our Presidential election, this
Presidential election in order to steer the result in a
particular direction, and then, as the pattern shows, to cover
it all up by stonewalling Congress and by issuing an
unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate ban on
participation in a congressional impeachment investigation.
You know, we got a letter from Mr. Cipollone where he
didn't even bother to invoke a privilege. He didn't even bother
to invoke the phony absolute immunity pretext they have been
using. He just said, no, we are not going to participate. They
really think that, unlike every other American citizen, they
are not subject to congressional subpoena.
And like you, Mr. Hastings, I would wish that even if our
colleagues across the aisle differ with us on Article I, they
have some difference which has yet to be expressed certainly
under oath by anyone. But if they believe there is a different
story or the President has an alibi, okay, fine. But in terms
of Article II, the President cannot have the power to destroy
our oversight investigative power if we are going to be able to
impeach a corrupt President.
Mr. Hastings. And that is the next question I wanted to ask
you. Does the United States Constitution place the power of
impeachment solely in the Congress?
Mr. Raskin. Solely in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Hastings. In the House of Representatives.
Mr. Raskin. And the reason why it is stated that way, Mr.
Hastings, is because the Framers didn't want the Senate
thinking that they could initiate an impeachment. They can't.
It has got to come from the House of Representatives, and
because they wanted it demarcated from the discussion which was
taking place at the time which is that, well, the Supreme Court
should impeach or the State legislature should impeach. There
were lots of ideas out there.
But, look, they said that the House of Representatives was
the organ that represents the people. We are the people's body.
Now, the Senate has some claim after the enactment of the 17th
Amendment. They are elected by the people now too. They used to
be chosen by the State legislators, but they really still do
represent on the kind of disproportionate basis of the--of each
State getting two despite the size of the State. But we are as
close as you get in our Constitution to the pure
representatives of the people.
Mr. Hastings. And the Senate acts on oath and affirmation
as well. Am I correct?
Mr. Raskin. They are the constitutional jurors, and in some
sense the judges too. They will decide on matters of law. But
they will make the final application of the law to the facts in
this case. And that is why I think you are correct to point out
that all of them have to think very carefully about what the
constitutional oath of a juror entails.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. And certainly some of them have been saying
things that seem to be apart from what we would expect of
jurors in any other context.
Mr. Hastings. It is my understanding that--and the Chairman
McGovern has pointed out some of this, but I want to highlight
the number. It is my understanding that the executive branch
has received over 70 specific individualized requests for
documents during Congress' impeachment inquiry. How many
documents have been produced?
Mr. Raskin. Zero have been produced. We have not gotten
anything. We have not gotten anything from the Office of
Management and Budget. We have not gotten anything from the
Department of State. I mean, we have witnesses who complained
to us in this process that their own documents had essentially
been embargoed and controlled by the President and by the
executive branch when they wanted to turn it over so we could
find out what was going on. We are in a search for the truth
here. This is not a game. We want to know what happened.
Mr. Hastings. I hear you.
In response to duly authorized subpoenas, how many top
aides has President Trump made available to the committees
conducting the impeachment inquiry?
Mr. Raskin. Well, he has tried to block all of the
witnesses. We ended up having 17 witnesses, but there is still
a number of key fact witnesses who have not come forward
because the President has succeeded in blocking and restraining
their testimony, like the Secretary of Energy, like the
director of the Office of Management and Budget and so on.
Mr. Hastings. My recollection, during the Judiciary
proceedings, is that you put this question in a different form
that I am about to put to my colleagues now, and that is all of
us in this room. I ask the question, how many of my friends
here on this dais think it is okay for an American President to
solicit foreign interference in our elections? Raise your hands
if you think that that is okay. Anybody?
I see none. And in that light, clearly we have these
differences.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hastings. Would you consider Ukraine a strategic
partner to the United States?
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hastings. Do you want us to believe that withholding
the aid for the reasons our investigation identifies did not
harm United States national security?
Mr. Collins. Which ones are you talking about? I will--on
that fact pattern, Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. I am talking about----
Mr. Collins. The one that you--the ones that the majority
stipulate to or the ones the minority stipulate to?
Mr. Hastings. The majority.
Mr. Collins. No. I do not agree with the majority's
interpretation of the call.
Mr. Hastings. I seem to think that that is going to be your
role. You don't think that asking a President of a foreign
country, that is in a hot war, that we withhold aid from him,
you don't think that affects our national security, if you
think Ukraine is our ally, as I believe you do and I do?
Mr. Collins. Mr. Hastings, I just don't accept the premise
of your facts.
Mr. Hastings. All right. What value for Ukraine do you see
in the Oval Office visit that was being sought?
Mr. Collins. You would have to ask Ukraine.
Mr. Hastings. Do you recognize that such a visit would send
a strong message to Russia, sort of like Lavrov being in the
Oval office last week, and the rest of the world that the
United States supported Ukraine and was ready to defend it
against Russian aggression?
Mr. Collins. I think a better statement was when Mr. Trump
sent actually offensive weapons to shoot down Russian assets.
Mr. Hastings. And that ignores the fact that the aid was
withheld and a hot war was ongoing?
Mr. Collins. Again, we are going--in all due respect, we
are going in circles here. I do not believe there is anything
wrong with the aid being held for the reasons that was said,
and I have stated this before. And, actually, Mr. Trump did
more for the Ukrainians in a hot war than was previously done.
So I think we are----
Mr. Hastings. You know, I have heard that before, and I am
not going to elaborate, but I can assure you if they point, as
you do and many do, to President Obama not providing lethal
weapons, what the minority fails to note is during the early
stages of the Trump administration the aforementioned lethal
weapons were provided to Ukraine. And it wasn't until 2019
during the lead-up to the 2020 Presidential election and after
former Vice President Biden announced his candidacy did
President Trump exert his official duties and place a hold on
lethal aid.
Let me turn to corruption. Ostensibly, this July 25
transcript reflects, according to my friends on the other side,
both in Judiciary and to the extent that the report from
Intelligence reflects it, that in this particular matter, that
corruption was what was being sought to be determined. Hmm.
Let me urge President Trump to look around the world if he
wants to talk about corruption, and have him answer for me why
he cosies up to Russia and all roads lead to Russia, when we
all know how corrupt they are and what they have done, not only
in the previous election, but what they are doing even as we
are in the runup to this election. And, yes, my county--my
State had two counties that hackers from Russia were
successful. And he has the audacity to go out and say now they
don't talk about Russia in the elections, they are talking
about Ukraine.
Why is it that the President, as the chairman has pointed
out, cosies up to a dictator like Duterte in the Philippines?
Why is he not looking right here in this hemisphere, where we
have not paid as much attention as we should. And I believe my
colleague is going to address it, but I do need to raise
Venezuela, and I haven't heard very much lately from him with
reference to Venezuela. I haven't heard very much from him
about El Salvador. Haven't heard, other than China dealing with
trade.
Anybody in here that doesn't believe China is corrupt, then
you should just visit any one of the places where people are in
gulags and being held and how intellectuals and religious
leaders are being tortured in that country. And not to mention,
the chairman pointed to it as what the President said, that he
fell in love with Kim Jong-un. And Kim Jong-un is preparing
missiles, and if successful, may one day be able to reach this
country, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't.
Is the President aware of what is going on in Italy? Is he
aware of what is going on in India? How about Iran? I haven't
heard him say a mumbling word about what is happening in Iran.
Is he aware of what is going on in Lebanon? Is he aware of the
corruption that is being identified and how Chile is on the
bubble? I just can't believe you people.
And let me turn now to this and ask you all, and I already
know the answer. Can anybody in here, particularly those of us
on the Rules Committee, name any other President in the history
of the United States that has asked a foreign government or its
leaders to investigate an American citizen for political
purposes?
Mr. Hastings. Can anybody in here identify any President
that has done that? Seeing none, I proceed.
The simple fact of the matter is that my colleagues have
determined that they are going to go down the road of
distraction and are not going to discuss the facts in this
matter.
Let me tell you some of the people that you-all should have
heard from and some would argue that we should wait until the
courts--and I am sure that the administration would fight all
the way to keep Secretary Pompeo from testifying, John Bolton
from testifying, Mick Mulvaney, Dan McGahn or Don McGahn, the
man that the President told to go and fire the FBI Director.
How about Robert Blair and Michael Duffey, the guys from Mick
Mulvaney's shop where the aid has been withheld?
Now let me turn to this document. First off, let me ask
both of you whether you know if a full verbatim transcript
exists of this July 25th call.
Mr. Collins, do you know?
Mr. Collins. I know that all the witnesses testified that
this was a clear and accurate transcript.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Raskin, do you know whether a verbatim
transcript exists?
Mr. Raskin. For the July 25th call?
Mr. Hastings. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Well, that is not a verbatim transcript.
Mr. Hastings. Correct.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. That we have. That is a
contemporaneous memorandum that was written by the White House.
I have never seen--I have never seen a verbatim transcript.
Mr. Collins. There is no witness that testified--there is
no witness that contradicted the statements in that and on any
of the witnesses.
Mr. Hastings. Excuse me?
Mr. Collins. They did not. They said the transcript was
accurate.
Mr. Hastings. Well, what about all of those people that
testified before your committee that discussed matters that
they thought were wrong that the President did?
Mr. Collins. Wow, Mr. Hastings, I wish we had had all those
people testify before my committee, but they didn't.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. Let me turn to the footnote on this
unclassified document that is in the record. It says: A
memorandum of a telephone conversation is not a verbatim
transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records
the notes and recollections of Situation Room duty officers and
NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the
conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A
number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record,
including poor telephone communications connections and
variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word, quote,
inaudible, unquote, is used to indicate--it says ``indicate''--
portions of a conversation that the note-taker was unable to
hear.
Do either of you know why the full transcript is in a
classified server that can be accessed only by the highest of
authorities insofar as classification of their ability? Do any
of you know why this thing is in a server, this classified
server?
Mr. Raskin. No, I cannot give you the full explanation of
that.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Morrison testified it was put there in
administrative error. Mr. Morrison testified to that.
Mr. Hastings. Administrative error.
Mr. Collins. That is his testimony, his words, not mine.
Mr. Hastings. Who is Mr. Morrison?
Mr. Collins. The gentleman who testified at committee, Mr.
Kim--no--he works for the NSS--no, NSC. I am sorry.
Mr. Hastings. Is he the person that put it in the server
or----
Mr. Collins. He is the one that testified to it. You would
have to ask him. Again, I would love to do all this. We would
have loved to have had these witnesses actually in Judiciary.
Mr. Hastings. Would you have loved to have the server?
Mr. Collins. I would love to have the witnesses.
Mr. Hastings. We have got people running around Ukraine,
looking for a server under some CrowdStrike notion.
Mr. Collins. Yeah, and we also have several people bribing
public officials, too, and that is a Ukrainian issue as well
but on this one----
Mr. Hastings. There is no issue.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. There is no credible witness who
says there is anything in the transcript that was not there.
Mr. Hastings. I find it----
Mr. Collins. None of your witnesses, none of your
witnesses.
Mr. Hastings. I find it that the President goes out, issues
this unclassified statement, and there is a statement out there
somewhere in a classified server that may have gotten there
mistakenly according to Mr. Morrison, as you are testifying,
but my question ultimately would be: Why is it there? Why
hasn't it been retrieved? And why have you all not received it?
But I digress. Let me go on and finish up with this----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings [continuing]. Unclassified statement.
Mr. Collins. Can I ask you this question? There is an
implication--and I would like a clarification. Are you implying
there is another transcript out there?
Mr. Hastings. I am implying that there is more than what we
have here----
Mr. Collins. Okay. Which----
Mr. Hastings [continuing]. That is on the server.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Which no witness testified to.
Mr. Hastings. Understood.
Mr. Collins. No witness of your witnesses testified to.
Mr. Hastings. Understood.
Mr. Collins. I was just making sure you didn't believe
there was another transcript out there.
Mr. Hastings. I don't know what is out there. I know
something is in this server.
Mr. Collins. That is about like us with the Intelligence
Committee's findings as well that they haven't transferred over
to Judiciary.
Mr. Hastings. I would like to see what is in the server.
Mr. Collins. I would love to see what is over from the
Intelligence Committee that was supposed to have been turned
over to H. 660 as well. So I think you and I are in agreement
there.
Mr. Hastings. Yeah, in that regard, we are.
I would also--let me tell you what--even the media in
dealing with this statement have not gone into certain of its
particulars. Here is what was said by Mr. Zelensky--and I am
truncating this so that I can get off and let other members go
about their business. He said: I would also like to thank you
for your great support--this is Mr. Zelensky talking to
President Trump on July 25th--in the area of defense. We are
ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps.
Specifically, we are almost ready to buy Javelins from the
United States for defense purposes.
President Trump replies: I would like you to do us a favor,
though.
This is from the man talking about buying Javelins. He goes
immediately to: I would like for you to do us a favor, though.
And a lot of emphasis has not been placed on that language,
and I am not a linguistic person, but the last time I recall
somebody asking me to do a favor, though, it was for something
that they wanted, and I can't believe that policy is what he
was talking about. He goes on to say: Because our country has
been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would
like you to find out what happened with this whole situation
with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike. I guess you had one of your
wealthy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are
a lot of things that went on. The whole situation, I think you
are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would
like you--I would like to have the Attorney General, meaning
our Attorney General.
And my question is why would you like the Attorney General
to call you or your people? And I would like you to get it--get
to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense
ended with the very poor performance by a man named Robert
Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it
started with Ukraine.
And my question is: Who said that? The only people I know
that said that are the Russians.
Yes, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for raising this important
point.
Dr. Fiona Hill, leading Russia expert who figures
importantly in this whole matter, has testified before this
committee--and it is completely uncontradicted and unrefuted--
that this CrowdStrike story about Ukraine being the one that
attacked our election in 2016 is Russian disinformation.
The President there was essentially just repeating Russian
disinformation and propaganda, either wittingly or unwittingly.
It seemed innocent enough. He really thought he thought he had
something there, but that is what he was repeating. There is
nothing behind it. Has been completely debunked and
discredited, but what makes me suspicious, Mr. Hastings, is
that he decided to tie that in with his other plan----
Mr. Hastings. Other plan.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Which was to get President
Zelensky to come and to point the finger at Joe Biden and say:
This is the guy we are investigating.
And, you know, you talk about national security and how
national security was compromised--and, obviously, America is a
country that nations all over the world look to, and we are
interested in the security of our land and our people but also
that of our allies and our strategic partners around the world,
and we should have some interest in what happens to Ukraine and
whether Russia is going to get to trample Ukraine or not.
But here is another way that national security is
implicated. If we say that forever hereafter we are going to
allow the President of the United States to use the awesome
powers of his office to shake down particular governments,
whether they are tyrants and despots, like Duterte in the
Philippines and Orban in Hungary and Putin in Russia and Sisi
in Egypt, or they are democrats--struggling democracies that
need our help, like the reformer Zelensky and Ukraine, but the
President is now allowed to shake them down, to get them
involved in on a covert basis in our campaign. Guess what? The
President might think he is slick by getting away with that,
but now there is a foreign government that has got something--
--
Mr. Hastings. Got something on us, uh-huh.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. On us. They have leverage on us at
that point.
Mr. Hastings. It turns out----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Hastings, would you allow me?
Mr. Hastings. Of course.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I know you are always great at
this.
Look, I think the process, I think we are looking the wrong
direction here, and I think it is interesting that we can talk
about all the other corruption around the world and the dislike
of the way this President has dealt with them, but we also have
to remember: Even in the transcript that you just read, it is a
backwards look, not a forwards look. It is a 2016 look at what
happened then. And you have rightly read the transcript that he
was talking about Robert Mueller, which was coming out of the
2016 election, all of the problems that were coming in.
Mr. Hastings. Did you read the Mueller report?
Mr. Collins. I read every bit of it, sir. That is my
committee.
Mr. Hastings. And you disagreed with the findings?
Mr. Collins. I agree with the findings. There was no
collusion from Russia, and he disagreed even with every member
of the Judiciary Committee on obstruction----
Mr. Hastings. On obstruction----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. On obstruction.
Mr. Hastings. That there were 10 obstructions of justice by
the President, do you agree with that?
Mr. Collins. No, they are not, because he did, because he
did.
Mr. Hastings. That is interesting.
Mr. Collins. Because obviously you didn't listen to the
Judiciary Committee when several members of the Judiciary
Committee outlined in pretty PowerPoints on the screen ``here
is this, here is this, this,'' and then he looked at them and
said, ``But I disagree with your conclusion.''
So you have to take the whole transcript. And this is what
I am talking about here. When you look at it here, he was
looking backwards. The Mueller report had just been done, but
Ms. Fiona Hill----
Mr. Hastings. I am going to reclaim my time and look----
Mr. Collins. Because Fiona Hill is interesting, because he
brought up Fiona Hill. And I just wanted to say this one thing.
Ukrainians, not Ukraine but Ukrainians, even Fiona Hill said
the Ukrainians bet on the wrong horse and after being reminded
by Ken Vogel that the various Ukrainian officials, Leshchenko--
I can't remember--the powerful Ukrainian--Parliament--
Leshchenko was spinning tales and providing false information
to Nellie Ohr, information that we all know has made its way
into the Steele dossier. This was aligning themselves with
Clinton.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Collins----
Mr. Collins. So it is backwards. That is all I am saying.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Collins, were you there when Ms. Hill
testified?
Mr. Collins. Not for Ms. Hill's testimony, no.
Mr. Hastings. All right. But you have.
Mr. Collins. I am happy to read the transcript just like
you are.
Mr. Hastings. All I can tell you is she dropped a dime on
President Trump's actions in Ukraine.
Mr. Collins. But not enough to find it in the Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. Hastings. Well, perhaps alone.
Mr. Collins. An abuse of power, again, we disagree on this.
And this is where we can honestly just disagree. I disagree
that abuse of power is a categorical catch-all.
Mr. Hastings. All right. I am going to--I am reclaiming my
time.
Mr. Collins. And I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. You are going to filibuster----
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings [continuing]. And I am going to reclaim my
time from you as well. Both of you-all talk pretty fast, no, I
might add, in defense of Mr. Collins for a minutes. It is
very--continuing, but President Trump says, is: It's very
important that you do it if it is possible.
Truncating again, because it is so much in here, but I will
try to start mid paragraph with Mr. Zelensky's reply: I would
also like and hope to see him having your trust--he is talking
about an ambassador that he is sending to the United States--
and your confidence and have personal relations with so we can
cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of
my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently, and we are
hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to
Ukraine, and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.
My question there is: Meet about what when Giuliani comes
to Ukraine? And the President just recently said that Giuliani
is a good man and a patriot, and he has done--he is doing this
for love. Last time, I bought an airline ticket, I didn't
present something that said ``love.'' And the question becomes:
Who is paying Giuliani?
I have a theory about, but I won't go into it.
He then goes on to say: I just wanted to assure you once
again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make
sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced
people.
He goes on at some point: So we can continue our strategic
partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people
in addition to that investigation. I guarantee, as the
President of Ukraine, that all the investigations will be done
openly and candidly. That I can assure you.
Then Trump says: Good, because I heard you had a
prosecutor--I think he is talking about Shokin--who was very
good, and he was shut down, and that is really unfair. A lot of
people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good
prosecutor down, and you had some very bad, bad people
involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the
mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will also--I will ask him to call you, along with
the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what is happening,
and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that
would be great. The former Ambassador from the United States,
the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in
the Ukraine were bad news. So I just wanted to let you know
that. The other thing, there is a lot of talk about Biden's
son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people
want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the
Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution. So, if you can look into it,
it sounds horrible to me.
Now then, Zelensky says, truncating again, that: Since we
have won the absolute majority in person, my candidate, who
will be approved by the Parliament and will start as the new
prosecutor in September, he or she will look into the
situation, specifically to the company--and my guess is he is
talking about Burisma in that particular incident--mention in
this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is
actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty. So we
will take care of that, and we will work on the investigation
of the case.
On top of that, I kindly ask you, if you have any
additional information that you can provide us, it would be
very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we
administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador
to the United States from Ukraine. As far as I can recall, her
name was Yovanovitch.
Now that lady didn't deserve President Trump commenting
that she was going to go through some things.
And I quote him: I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call,
and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call, and we
will get to the bottom of it. I am sure you will figure it out.
I heard the prosecutor was treated badly.
Now everybody in the European Union, friends of mine knew
that Poroshenko was a crook, and there is nobody in this room
that does not know that, and Trump very well knew that or
should have or had poor staffing during that period of time.
I am going to end here where he says: Good. Well, thank you
very much. And I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney
General Barr to call.
And I just can't believe that Perry and Sondland and Rudy
Giuliani, or whoever the Three Amigos were, were running around
in Ukraine in some fashion, aside from the diplomatic
responsibilities that we have with any country.
And, yes, Mr. Collins, we do have an FBI. We do have people
that do investigations in foreign countries when there are
commissions of crimes, and we don't use people running around.
Otherwise, they could have used me. I was on the Intel
Committee, and people could have asked me. I went to Ukraine. I
did, after the Orange Revolution, the monitoring that led to
them being able to stand up their government, and thanks to the
Lithuanians and the Polish, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, at
that time that we were able to do that, and then I went back a
second time to Ukraine to monitor their election. So I am no
rookie in this stuff.
But when it comes to policy, what we have here is a corrupt
President that wanted to do something to advance his political
circumstances. And as the chairman said, that is so wrong.
What say you, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Well, first of all, I am moved by your
statements and also by your work for democracy and for freedom
and anticorruption in Europe; and I know that that is something
that has been very important to you.
The President essentially empowered and outsourced an
alternative channel to the regular Department of State and
National Security Council officials. And Rudy Giuliani, as you
say, was at the heart of it. We have lots of testimony from
witnesses who said, whenever the President got some kind of
report on Ukraine, he would say: Talk to Rudy. Talk to Rudy.
In other words, Rudy has got the franchise on Ukraine, and
we know what Rudy wanted to do. As recently as today, we had an
update on it. Rudy now puts himself front and center in the
campaign to smear----
Mr. Hastings. On FOX News this morning.
Mr. Raskin. He put himself front and center on the campaign
to smear our Ambassador, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine who is
fighting corruption, who is one of the world's leading
anticorruption fighters, and she understood that Ukraine had a
chance here with the election of President Zelensky.
And instead of bolstering Ukraine, helping them, getting
the aid that we voted for them, aid that had been approved by
the Department of Defense, having cleared all of the
anticorruption criteria that we had legislated and the
Department of State, which had done that--all the Ts are
crossed, all the Is are dotted, the money is set to go--the
President holds it up. And then he puts this other team into
action to engineer the shakedown against President Zelensky in
order to get the political favor or the domestic political
errand, as Dr. Fiona Hill said, that he wanted.
Mr. Hastings. It is in my judgment a shame what happened.
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I can't
believe that they won't address the facts as you have just
outlined them and as I have attempted to and as the chairman
has. All they want to talk about is process. This ain't about
process. This is about the President abusing his power, and
you-all will pardon me nor not using my inside voice, but you-
all don't either.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am happy to yield now to the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rarely find myself in disagreement with my good friend
from Florida. In fact, more often than not, I find myself
educated by him. But I have got to disagree with him today
because this is all about process. It is all about process.
I don't know how many minds were changed when the gentleman
from Florida read the transcript again. I suspect none,
probably the most single-most read transcript in American
history. Folks know what they think that they know. But to my
friend from Florida's point: Is there a verbatim transcript
somewhere? I don't know. You asked the question to the two
witnesses that we had called to testify, two of the brightest
Members of Congress in my estimation. They don't know.
And if I understood my friend from Georgia correctly, there
were no witnesses who were working on that transcript that you
had an opportunity to talk to directly?
Mr. Collins. No, we had no witnesses in Judiciary.
Mr. Woodall. So my friend from Florida is rightly outraged
by his perception of wrongdoing. I hope that he is equally
outraged by the inability to get information, not just our
inability, sitting here on the Rules Committee today, but your
inability. If we had an Intelligence Committee member here,
they could have answered Mr. Hastings' question. And I don't
know.
Well, I will ask my friends, as Mr. Hastings did: Is there
somebody in this room on this committee that believes that the
American people and our support of the Constitution that we
have all sworn to uphold is threatened by having a member of
the committee of jurisdiction be here to share with us? How are
the American people advantaged by the absence of our--by the
inability of our witnesses to answer Mr. Hastings' questions?
How is America advantaged by that?
My friend from Georgia, leading the Judiciary Committee,
said that he was told--and I hope I am misquoting you, Mr.
Collins, and I misquoted you before. So I won't take any
offense with your correcting me. I believe you said you asked
the chairman about having a minority witness day, and he
dismissed it as dilatory.
Mr. Collins. That was part of the--included in the long
letter that he read to us, yeah. It was basically dilatory.
That is very similar to the letter that was given to Mr. Cole
in answer.
Mr. Woodall. I have the letter that was sent to Mr. Cole,
and if we needed a finer chairman on the Democratic side of the
aisle, then we might have some other choices on our side, but
there is no finer chairman on the Democratic side of the aisle
than my chairman on the Rules Committee and the staff that he
has to support him, but I don't know if you have seen the
letter. I will share with you what it says, Mr. Collins. It
says that: Not to worry. In this case, however, it says,
Chairman Nadler has appropriately said that he will work with
the minority to schedule their hearing.
The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Woodall. I will be happy to.
The Chairman. And, you know, maybe he wasn't here when I
referenced Mr. Nadler's response before, but I am quoting right
here where he says: I am willing to work with the minority to
schedule such a hearing.
All right. I mean----
Mr. Woodall. My friend from Massachusetts misconstrues my
statement.
The Chairman. Oh, okay.
Mr. Woodall. I stipulate what you are saying is absolutely
true, absolutely true. I was only going to ask----
Mr. Collins. Can I object?
Mr. Woodall. I was only going to ask--I was only going to
ask my friend from Georgia what good it was going to do to hold
the minority hearing 2 days or 3 days or 3 weeks after we voted
to impeach the President of the United States.
Mr. Collins. What, in essence, does it matter if you throw
the person in jail and then say, ``Oh, the Innocence Project
will come around at some point and clear him''? That is not
what has happened here. You can't just say: Oh, we will get--if
Chairman Nadler came to me and said: You know, April 1st next
year looks like a great day for your minority day hearing.
What good does that do? It does none. And, again, it goes
to the basic fairness.
And I do want to say one thing, if you will allow me, Mr.
Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Please.
Mr. Collins. Two things have come up. One, there is no
witness, period, no witness in the statement that said that
there was, number one, another transcript; or, number two, that
the transcript we have was not accurate. Okay. That is just a
fact.
The other thing here is I have talked about process a lot,
will continue to, but I have also acknowledged, and I have very
much a factual defense of what I believe the facts are wrong
here. You may disagree with my interpretation of that, but I
have made a factual defense. I will go back to it. We talk
about the four things that we talk about that didn't change,
the pressure. But there is also five meetings, five meetings.
If you want to draw a correlation between the conditioned
aid--and it should have come up. It has come up in these five
meetings. On July 25, we have the transcript of the call
between the President and President Zelensky. On July 26,
Special Envoy Volker and Taylor met with President Zelensky.
The alleged link in aid and the investigations never came up.
August 27, John Bolton met with President Zelensky. Link in aid
never came up. September 1, Vice President Pence met with
Zelensky in Warsaw; link in aid in investigations never came
up. On September 5, Senators Johnson and Murphy met with
Zelensky again; The supposed link in aid never came up.
I point out the last two because they are important,
because the last two are after it became public knowledge
through Politico that the aid was being held. Nothing came up.
Facts matter. And when you don't have the right facts, then you
have to go to the more amorphous topics. That is something. I
have fought on the facts. We may disagree about them, but I
have fought back on facts.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Raskin appropriately points out that what
we are doing is precedent-setting. Hopefully, it is not
unprecedented, but it is certainly precedent-setting, and I
think he asked us to think of the right question and his
question was: If this were a Democratic President, would your
answer still be the same? I care less about the Republican
President and Democratic President. I know Mr. Raskin has a
love of the law.
My question, Mr. Raskin, is: How are the American people
advantaged by Mr. Collins having no opportunity to put together
a list of fact witnesses of his choosing, have them share their
story, and then the very able majority on the Judiciary
Committee, the Democrats, cross-examine those witnesses? How
are the American people advantaged by that absence?
Mr. Raskin. So the first thing we need to say, again, is
that the President and his team had the power to call whatever
witnesses they wanted.
Mr. Woodall. Well, if I could reclaim my time for a
moment----
Mr. Raskin. Yeah.
Mr. Woodall. You have said that several times.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah.
Mr. Woodall. The first time you said it, you properly
caveated it with: Any of the 17 witnesses that the Democrats
called on the Intelligence Committee, the President could have
called any one of those Democratic witnesses back to testify
again. I don't believe you mean the President has the right to
call any witness that he wants in front of the Judiciary
Committee. For Pete's sake, he wouldn't even give the ranking
member the right to call people in front of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. Raskin. You certainly do not have the right to call
irrelevant witnesses. And so, ultimately, it would have been up
to the chair to decide whether the person was relevant or not.
Mr. Woodall. To be clear, there is the ability--because I
have a misunderstanding. The President had the ability to call
a witness into the Judiciary Committee, other than the 17
witnesses that the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee
decided they were going to deposition?
Mr. Raskin. He could have submitted names for anybody he
wanted to.
Mr. Woodall. My ranking member submitted names and the
answer was, no: No, we are not going to do that, but your
definition of the fair and free process that advantages the
American people is that the President could submit any name he
wants to. The chairman just gets to say no.
Mr. Raskin. But my dear Mr. Woodall, you understand that we
are in the process of collecting information to establish an
indictment, in essence, charges against the President. These
are Articles of Impeachment. The trial process takes place in
the Senate. That is where they conduct a trial, where their
rules will govern and anybody presumably will be able to bring
in whatever witnesses they want to bring in. Now we have tried
to run a completely open, fair, and transparent process.
Mr. Woodall. Reclaiming my time for a moment----
Mr. Raskin. Yeah.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Because you frequently, and you
did when we established the rules for the impeachment process
in this committee----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. You have frequently referred to
the grand jury room. The grand jury room is not intended to be
a place of fairness. It is intended to be a place of
indictment. You have said----
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Woodall, whoa, whoa, whoa, would you
yield?
Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield to my friend from
Florida.
Mr. Hastings. My Goodness gracious, what did you just say?
Mr. Woodall. The grand jury room is not intended to provide
fairness to any defendant. It is intended to indict. As my
friend from Maryland simply stated, the defense comes next.
Mr. Hastings. Understood. But are you saying that
prosecutors don't have any other responsibility in the grand
jury other than to indict?
Mr. Woodall. Of course not.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. I just want to make sure.
Mr. Woodall. Of course not.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Woodall----
Mr. Woodall. The prosecutor has an obligation to people
that the prosecutor serves in the same way that we have that
same obligation and the words--I want to quote him correctly.
Mr. Raskin said there has been plenty of fairness in this
process.
And my question was: How are the American people advantaged
by Mr. Collins getting absolutely no witnesses before the
committee and the White House getting absolutely no witnesses
in front of the committee? And the answer is, Mr. Woodall, this
wasn't intended to be a defense of the President----
Mr. Raskin. If you want me to say that, I clearly did not
make myself clear. The President and Mr. Collins and the
Republicans could have called any of the witnesses who
appeared, any of the 17 sworn witnesses.
Mr. Woodall. Any of your----
Mr. Raskin. It is not yours or mine. These are American
citizens. These are the Department of State.
Mr. Woodall. These----
Mr. Raskin. These are National Security Council employees.
Mr. Woodall. Reclaiming my time.
The Chairman. Let me just say we can't speak over one
another because the stenographer can barely keep up with us
because we all talk so fast. So we are talking over each other.
So I just I caution everybody, the witnesses and members of the
committee, just to ask a question, let the answer.
Mr. Woodall. And I am hamstrung, Mr. Chairman, by the fact
that Mr. Raskin isn't the decisionmaker on these issues.
And, again, to Mr. Collins's point about the clock being
the master, Mr. Nadler, Chairman Nadler, has put in months of
work on this, not as much time as Chairman Schiff has put in on
this, but put in months of work, and we have neither of the two
committee chairmen who have done all of the work here before us
to answer our questions.
And I have no doubt that Mr. Raskin is exasperated because
he is an answerer, and he is a fact provider, and he educates
this committee on a regular basis on matters of the law.
But it offends my sense of fairness that my ranking member
can't have a witness of his choosing. I am not talking about a
hundred witnesses. I am talking about a witness of his choosing
to come and that the process gets described over and over again
as the White House had plenty of opportunity and everybody had
an equal chance to question. Nonsense. Nonsense.
And to let that record stand perpetuates the myth that this
is supposed to have been a fair process, I would argue it could
have been a fair process. It simply wasn't.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Just to be clear here, and I think the
operative word that my friend from Maryland said was ``tried''
and I think--I will give a try. It just wasn't a real good one
to be fair in this.
For me, and, again, you can't have it both ways. You can't
call the grand jury, which only the prosecution calls witness.
There is no exculpatory. They have to depend on the prosecutor
to live up to the prosecutor integrity and all that kind of
stuff. You can't have it and say, ``We are a grand jury,'' and
then, on the other side, say, ``We want to make it fair so that
people can call witnesses and give their side of their
defense.'' They don't call that side of the defense in a grand
jury. They don't do that.
So here is my--here is the issue. I have never been--when
I--in a court or where I was practicing, I never went to the
prosecutor to say, ``Who could I call,'' and the prosecutor
say, ``Well, you can call all of my witnesses.''
Well, at least at some point in that mix, Mr. Raskin, I
believe would at least--and others even on the Democrat side, I
believe they would at least have to acknowledge that having the
chairman determine relevancy of my witnesses called or even the
White House is a problematic exercise because, if they are
determining relevancy, then they are discounting any
possibility, any possibility of exculpatory evidence coming
from one of my witnesses. They are basically saying they are
irrelevant. So we don't want to hear from them and discounting
any possibility, any, that they will be exculpatory. So let's
make that very clear in this.
That is why this was, again, we felt a very unfair process.
Mr. Woodall. Now, Mr. Raskin, you said earlier, and I think
rightly, you said some folks can't even--you can't concede that
the call was not perfect. Surely, folks could concede that
things were not perfect, and Mr. Collins did not characterize
the call as perfect. My question is, can't you concede what Mr.
Collins----
Mr. Raskin. I never heard anybody say that. Who said that?
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Collins. He wasn't trying to describe it
as perfect. He was trying to describe it as noncriminal. I am
misquoting--I am misquoting his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Who said that?
Mr. Woodall. But my question--my question to you is, can
you not concede that having the chairman who is leading the
impeachment inquiry determine relevancy of the, for lack of a
better word, defense witnesses is flawed?
Mr. Raskin. Yeah, so this was the exact same process that
took place in the Clinton impeachment. It was the same process
that took place in the Nixon impeachment, which is the minority
gets the right to request witnesses; and if they are relevant,
they will be accepted. It is hard to know what to do otherwise,
especially in an environment where people are bringing all
kinds of extraneous conspiracy theories to try to explain what
is going on.
Mr. Woodall. Just to quote your--you back to you, because I
want to use the best sources I can--
Mr. Raskin. Yeah.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. On this material, when you quoted
the--when you cited the House rule that required the minority
witnesses be heard, you said in your recollection that is not a
conditioned precedent to having the hearing and reporting the
bill and you are, of course, right.
Mr. Raskin. You are talking about the minority hearing
provision----
Mr. Woodall. That is right.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Not having an independent hearing
for the minority, yeah.
Mr. Woodall. There is absolutely no House rule that
requires that we hear from the minority before not just the die
has been cast, but the bill has been reported, passed on the
floor, and sent to the President. That is not a requirement,
and you were right that we should probably go back and look at
if that we are truly trying to give the minority a voice.
But you have to tell me how the American people are
advantaged by hearing from exculpatory witnesses after the
House has voted.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. First of all, if there is a name of an
exculpatory witness, please put it forward. We have done
nothing other than try to get all of the President's men to
come in and testify. It is the President who has been
blockading Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Perry and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and numerous
other witnesses.
It is just to me it is the height of irony that you guys
are making the argument that somehow we don't want the evidence
in. We want all the evidence. That is why we want to hold the
President in obstruction of justice because he has been
preventing us from getting----
Mr. Woodall. It would not surprise me if you were right.
So let me ask the gentleman from Georgia. Is that right?
You submitted a list of witnesses that you wanted to come to
the committee, and the President said that those witnesses
would not be allowed to testify?
Mr. Collins. No President talked to me about that.
Mr. Woodall. No, that is not right.
Mr. Collins. The interesting thing--and I found out
something new today. This is why hearings are actually good,
and maybe you can recall it when it is good. This is the first
time I have ever heard it--and Mr. Raskin said it twice today--
that if I had just called one of the 17, I would have got them.
That has been interesting. He said it a couple of times now, if
not more, that if I had just called them, and now they are
having to correct him. He said it several time, and I
understand this is tough, and he is in a very tough position,
and he is doing an admirable job for what he is doing.
But it is interesting that that would come out, because I
know he is an integral part of that team, that if I had just
called one of the 17, they would have been accepted which would
have been interesting. Wouldn't it have then been logical for
the chairman to call some of those 17 so we could have at least
had the impression we were actually doing our own interviews of
these witnesses? Because what happened even in the Intel
Committee was, is some of the--after you talked to them, they
gave testimony. Then they had to come back, and some of them
actually re-upped their testimony. Why wouldn't we have brought
them back, say, ``Okay, you done this a couple of times, but we
didn't get that''? The majority whose job it was to prosecute
this didn't do that as well.
Mr. Woodall. Well, as you recall, we fought that on our
side of the aisle when this process was being set up. Thought
it was odd that the Intelligence Committee was going to be the
only one talking to factfinders. Tried to require that
exculpatory evidence be provided to the Judiciary Committee.
I want to touch on one more piece of process because my
friend from Florida raised it, and he raised it in the context
of Mr. McConnell and Mr. Graham, Senator McConnell and Senator
Graham, in that they should recuse themselves because they have
already picked a dog in this particular fight.
I think we so often say things to one another around here
that the American people end up listening to that turn out to
be flawed, and, again, I think everyone on this committee has
great respect for Mr. Raskin. He is not just a valuable member
of the Judiciary Committee; he is an even more valuable member
of our Rules Committee.
But because I didn't have a chance, when I found out I
wasn't going to have a chance to talk to Mr. Nadler, I went and
brushed up on Raskin policy and I think they misquoted you, to
be fair, Mr. Raskin, but Salon did an interview with you even
before the President was elected and their headline is ``At
Least One Democratic Congressman is Already Preparing to
Impeach Donald Trump.'' The article is Donald Trump won't be
sworn in for another 48 hours, and at least one Democratic
Congressman has already seen enough. You go on to talk about
the emoluments clause and your, I think, legitimate questions
as a constitutionalist about those issues.
That was 48 hours before the President was sworn in. You
are sitting on the grand jury that is impartially considering
the evidence, and the emoluments clause that you were quoted as
supporting impeachment on behalf of 48 hours before the
President was even elected I can't find anywhere in the
articles that we see before us today. Have you changed your
mind from then or do you think, as Politico is reporting, that
we are going to see part two of impeachment come down the road,
that this was just impeachment number one and there is going to
be impeachment number two and impeachment number three?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for that question.
I would love nothing more than to have a separate hearing
on my personal views about the meaning of the foreign
emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause. I have
written widely about it, including The Washington Post. I have
written several pieces about it. But I am here to represent the
Judiciary Committee because of the absence of Mr. Nadler, and
it wouldn't be fair for me to get into that because I would not
be representing the views of the entire Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Woodall. I think that is perfectly--I think that is
perfectly fair. When we voted to table, as Mr. Cole referenced,
in regard to Mr. McGovern's vote in December of 2017, of
course, you opposed that motion to table as well, and at that
time you said it was a vote out of frustration and that what
you wanted was a real inquiry, a real inquiry into corruption
and criminality in the Trump administration. Now this was 2
years before this phone call ever happened. And so, again, I am
looking at Articles of Impeachment here. I have got members of
the Judiciary Committee who were certain of corruption and
criminality in the Trump administration that exists nowhere
here.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Please.
Mr. Raskin. You would concede that there are other episodes
of corruption in the business career of Donald Trump and in the
political career now that are not part--at all part of this
process. So, I mean, I don't know if--look, there are patterns
of conduct and behavior that have been noticed. One of them is
extremely relevant to this investigation. That is what took
place in 2016. That is when Donald Trump essentially invited in
Russia--the whole world heard him say it--invited Russia to
come into our election. He welcomed their interference. The
special counsel at the Department of Justice found more than a
hundred contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian
nationals there, and then when it began to happen, the
President moved to obstruct the investigation, and that is in
the Mueller report which we talked about today, all of those
episodes of corruption.
So there is a pattern of evidence, and I don't know--look.
When Bill Clinton got impeached for what he did, you could
certainly find Republicans who had been calling for his
impeachment for several years for other stuff. There were
conspiracy theories about him going on for years that. That
doesn't necessarily discredit what happened in the impeachment
of Bill Clinton. You have got to take it on its own terms. That
is why we are trying to get back to the facts of what took
place here with the Ukraine shakedown.
Mr. Woodall. I think you are mistaking my intent. I was not
citing comments that you had made in the past to put you as a
Never Trumper whose sole purpose was to reverse a legitimate
American election. That was not my intent. My intent was to
mention you as someone who is a thoughtful legal mind, who had
other legal concerns going back for years.
And when folks say, ``Rob, what do you mean this process is
rushed; we have done it over--just under 90 days; isn't that
long enough,'' well, no, that is faster than any other
process--that is faster than--well, we have got a response from
the Justice Department when we asked for our Fast and Furious
documents.
But what it isn't is a complete process, I think by your
own testimony here, that there is more that we could have done
that we didn't do. And my question then is, because I do think
we are all about advantaging the American people and the
Republic and the Constitution: Are we advantaged, are the
American people advantaged by--because, again, Politico is
reporting that the investigations are going to continue, that
the investigations do not stop with the House vote tomorrow. We
will continue to investigate the potential impeachment of the
President long after we have already voted to impeach the
President is the story that is out there today.
Are we advantaged as an institution to have impeachment
number one and impeachment number two and impeachment number
three instead of, as we did in the Bill Clinton era, put all of
the articles into a single document after a longer and more
thorough investigation and have this process sent to the Senate
just once?
Mr. Raskin. I believe I am going to ask my staff just to
confirm this. I believe the Clinton investigation moved much
more quickly after the Starr report arrived in Congress than we
have so far, but we will check the days on this, but I think
they are approximately in the same ballpark.
But, look, your basic question is an excellent one. You ask
an excellent question here. And all I can say is that we have a
clear and present danger to our democracy right now because of
the electoral corruption. This President invited in a foreign
power to come and interfere in our election, and he used all of
the resources of his office to coerce President Zelensky to
come in to make these announcements he wanted for a totally
political purpose. That is this election that is going on right
now.
And so we have got to deal with this, and we have a very
serious and complicated problem to address as a country right
now, which is: Do we want to establish that this can be the
norm going forward, that any President, whether their last name
is Trump or Obama or Woodall or anything else, can go to
foreign governments in the middle of a campaign, lure them in,
either through coercion or through honey, whatever it might be,
and get them to participate in our election? That is a really
serious problem.
So, look, I agree with you. There--and, you know, you ask a
trenchant question, Mr. Woodall. There are other things that
are not part of this, but that is because of the urgency of
this situation.
Mr. Woodall. I take that----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. I take that point.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. I say it again: clock and calendar. That is
why we are doing it. That is all it is. That is why we say
things like it is imperative, ongoing, whatever you want to
call it. It is a clock-and-calendar issue.
And, look, we already know that, when this fails, there
will probably be others. That has been reported widely, not
just in, you know, magazines. Straight out of the words of Mr.
Schiff, straight out of the words of Mr. Green, other
colleagues that we have had.
And, again, it is--Professor Turley said it this way: The
current lack of proof is another reason why an abbreviated
investigation into this matter is so damaging to the case for
impeachment.
It doesn't have the footing on it. And if you are doing it
because you want to get into an election, when obviously the
discussion was a previous one in which there was, you know,
issues that was looking at that, then I can't help you, and
time and calendar will take over.
Mr. Woodall. Well, we are talking today about reversing
America's last election. Candidly, I have every bit as much
concern about the time that we will reverse the next election
or the election after that or the election after that. To do
this in a partisan way, of course, there are always going to be
differences of opinion. I disagree with my chairman about much
more than I agree with him about, but that doesn't mean that we
can't find a process to move forward on together.
It is not more divided in this Congress today than it was
in 1998 when folks found a process that they could work on
together because, as much as we cared about the Presidency
then, we cared more about the Constitution later, and we found
a way to move forward and moving forward in a partisan way is
going to have repercussions. I know my friend from Maryland
knows that. He believes it is urgent enough that it is worth
the risk, but it is a measurable and substantial risk, and
certainly the 13 of us, 14 with Mr. Collins here today, are
going be judged on that front because, despite our own personal
interests in the facts, we are not a fact committee. We are a
process committee, and I don't believe America is going to
judge us harshly because of the way the facts come out. I think
America is going to judge us harshly because the process that
has come forward.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Let me just say, we keep on hearing a lot about the clock
and calendar, but I would remind everyone that we are here
because of abuse and obstruction and the President's abuse of
power and obstruction of Congress. That is why we are here.
And, you know, I said it in my opening. And I will say this
again. We just have a difference of opinion. My friends try to
characterize this as trying to overturn the last election. I
look at this, as a crime in progress and that we are trying to
prevent the President from rigging the next election.
And, again, I have never, ever, ever seen or witnessed a
moment like this where a President of either party has publicly
invited foreign intervention in our election. He did it when he
was running for President. He did it with Ukraine. And the
administration has purposely decided not to cooperate, to drag
their feet, hoping that we would get through the next election.
This is--I said it was wrong. I mean, it is beyond the pale.
And we just have a difference of opinion on this.
I yield to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to both of you for being here.
I also want to thank my colleagues that have spoken before
me today for using your indoor voice and for exercising
decorum. We are on the third floor of the U.S. Capitol, and I
think it is important for us to be respectful with each other.
Today, we regrettably face one of the most solemn duties
the Constitution vests in Congress. I, like all of you here,
did not come to Congress to impeach a President. As a matter of
fact, on January 20th of 2017, I stood in the freezing rain to
watch Donald Trump be sworn in as the 45th President of the
United States. I was there in good faith. I was there because I
believe in the peaceful transfer of power. I was there because
I believe in the rule of law. And, maybe foolishly, I also
believe in second chances, that we would have elected someone
who can stand up and represent all Americans.
But then, in September, approximately 3 months ago, we
learned that President Trump had withheld critical military
funding to Ukraine, a strategic partner in a war with Russia;
and then, October 3, President Trump announced that China and
Ukraine should investigate his political rivals on national TV.
The President's personal attorney also said that Biden should
be investigated.
Now, President Trump famously said that he could shoot
someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City,
and he would get away with it. What mindset do you have to be
in to say that out loud on national TV and to believe that?
Well, anyone who turns a blind eye to behavior like this is
providing him that right.
Five GOP primaries have been canceled: Kansas, Alaska,
South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada. GOP, Republicans across the
Nation are locked in step to defend at any cost the bad actions
and illegal actions of this President. The facts are clear. To
quote the USA Today editorial board, Trump used your tax
dollars to shake down a vulnerable foreign government to
interfere in a U.S. election for his personal benefit.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, President Trump's handpicked
Ambassador to the European Union, testified to President
Trump's abuse of power under oath. And he said: I know that
members of this committee have frequently framed these
complicated issues in a form of a simple question: Was there a
quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the
request--to the requested White House call and White House
meeting, the answer is yes.
We also have the rough transcript of Trump's July 25 call,
released by the President himself. For all the claims that
President Trump was withholding military aid over corruption in
Ukraine, he never once utters the word ``corruption'' in the
call. He does ask for a favor, though, a favor that has nothing
to do with U.S. national interests and everything to do with
his own political interests. Trump's actions were a clear abuse
of Presidential power. He conditioned official acts of office
on a political advantage in the next election. Think about
that.
All of us here, Members of Congress, have taken Ethics
training on the House rules and on Federal crimes. I just did
the training last week. We have all sworn the same oath of
office to protect and defend our Constitution. And imagine,
imagine if a city in our districts asked for our help with a
grant or an appropriations request, would any of us reply, ``I
would like you to do us a favor, though, and announce an
investigation into my political opponent?'' Of course not. And
why would you not do that? Because no one--no one--is above the
law, not even the President. And you know that asking for that
type of favor is illegal.
The rule of law is what gives our great country its
strength. The rule of law is what separates us from Third World
countries where dictators reign for decades on. The rule of law
is what makes us, our great country, the envy of the world, the
place that other countries look for inspiration as they grow
their own democracies. And it is the rule of law that brings
all of us here today.
And as the only Member of Congress from Central American,
take it from me that we never want to see a day when the rule
of law simply fades away. I never want to see a day where
American families have to send their children to live outside
of the country because of public corruption. Look at Honduras.
Their Constitution banned Presidential reelections. Their
Constitution clearly states that if Presidents tried to get rid
of the reelection ban that they should be removed from office
immediately.
And despite all of this, President Juan Orlando Hernandez
ran again any way and the Supreme Court in Honduras, filled
with his supporters, got rid of term limits, and he is now
serving his second term in violation of his country's founding
principles.
Honduras is now a narco-state, and we have thousands of
Honduran families at our southern border seeking asylum.
In Guatemala, the people have been waging an uphill battle
against corruption for years. Former President Otto Perez
Molina took bribes in exchange for lower taxes. Millions of tax
dollars line the pockets of high ranking officials instead of
meeting the needs of the people in one of the poorest countries
in Latin America.
Today, President Trump said, after a meeting with President
Morales, in Guatemala they handle things much tougher than the
U.S. Imagine that. CICIG, the anticorruption organization
formed to bring justice to Guatemala, brought hundreds of cases
of corruption to light, but once they began investigating
President Jimmy Morales for illegal campaign financing, he
promptly shot down the commission. Does this sound familiar to
anyone?
President Morales even forced the former Attorney General,
Thelma Aldana, who worked to fight corruption, to seek asylum
in the United States because her safety is now at risk. Does
this sound familiar to anyone?
I bring these examples up to remind my colleagues that the
future health of our democracy is not assured. We can slide
back to tyranny one corrupt act at a time and until our
democracy is like the fake village in North Korea that faces
the DMZ, a nice-looking facade that masks the tyranny within.
That is why the Articles of Impeachment are so important.
Mr. Chairman, the Constitution did not come from a higher
power. It is just a document, a piece of paper with words
written on it. But we, the people, give the Constitution its
power. We, the people, decide to follow and honor our laws. And
today, we, the people, must agree that the laws apply to
everyone, including the President of the United States. That is
the precedent that we expect of all elected officials and it is
the precedent that we must reaffirm in these proceedings.
Sixty years ago, Martin Luther King issued a warning during
the civil rights era which resonates very much with the choice
before us today. And Dr. King said: If you fail to act now,
history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this
period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the
bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Let's move forward.
I want to ask you, do you know how many witnesses were
blocked from testifying?
Mr. Raskin. I think I may have to help on that. I believe
there are nine administration witnesses who--I am sorry--
somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there
were nine administration witnesses who were called who did not
come forward.
And if I might, Mrs. Torres, I am moved by what you had to
say. I was not aware that there were GOP primaries being
canceled.
Mrs. Torres. Canceled.
Mr. Raskin. It allows us to refocus on the importance of
elections and sovereignty of the people. I know some people
would say, well, that is just a private affair, let them do
their own thing, but forgive the law professor in me, but there
is a whole line of cases--Smith v. Allwright, Terry v. Adams--
it is called the white primary line of authority, which says
party primaries are actually essential for the voting rights of
all citizens, and equal protection does apply there.
Mrs. Torres. But Republicans in five States are being
denied an opportunity to choose a Republican candidate to move
forward and represent them. Five.
Mr. Raskin. So the general point there is that our system
is based on the idea of popular self-government, so you need to
have the channels of effective political participation open so
people can participate and people can compete.
Competition is good in economics, it is good in sports. It
is good in politics, too. We want to have a play of ideas and a
marketplace of ideas so we are able to get the best ideas out
there.
But the other critical point you made--and thank you for
pointing us to the Central American and the Latin American
example, because there has been a lot of instability in
democracy there where it is under attack by despots and
dictators and corrupt forces, and we are seeing this all over
the world now.
What is taking place in America has got to be seen in a
global context. There are dictators, despots, tyrants,
kleptocrats, and Putin is one of the ring leaders and Orban in
Hungary who is championing illiberal democracy and Sisi in
Egypt and Duterte in the Philippines and the homicidal Crown
Prince of Saudi Arabia and on and on, and they are all
besieging democracy.
And who is the beacon of hope for the world in terms of
democracy? America is, and we have got to show how it is really
done.
Mrs. Torres. So I am going to ask you one last question.
Did witness intimidation occur during your committee
hearing.
Mr. Raskin. To be clear, there were nine senior officials
who refused congressional subpoenas.
Mrs. Torres. On what grounds?
Mr. Raskin. Well, there were different statements made by
different of them. Some of them said that it was because of an
executive branch policy. And I would have to go back and look
and see which ones invoked this or that doctrine perhaps. I am
not sure. But we have never seen anything like this in scale
and scope and degree in American history. We just have not.
Mrs. Torres. A coverup.
Mr. Raskin. And the chairman of the Intelligence Committee
and the chair of the Judiciary Committee have praised those
people who have come forward.
And if I could, if you would allow me just one thought
about this. I think it has been said a couple times: Your
witnesses.
I think there were multiple witnesses there who totally
recoiled and rebelled against the idea that they were anybody's
witness. These are people who have devoted their lives to the
State Department, the National Security Council, serving the
American people. We have people in there like Ambassador
Taylor, a decorated Vietnam war hero. We have the lieutenant
colonel who was injured in Iraq, is a purple heart winner. We
have Fiona Hill. We have Ambassador Yovanovitch whose family
fled Nazi-Germany and Stalinist Russia and committed her whole
career to American democracy as an example.
These people are not majority witnesses or minority
witnesses or these or ours. The vast majority of them said: We
are not here in any partisan context. We are not here with any
partisan purpose. We are here to tell the truth.
And they swore an oath to tell the truth. Those people went
under oath. They are not throwing tomatoes from the sidelines.
They went under oath and told exactly what they saw and what
they heard, and we have their direct testimony.
Mrs. Torres. And rather than commending them for their
courage, someone on Twitter decided to intimidate and diminish
their testimony.
Mr. Raskin. You know, I never thought in my lifetime we
would get to a point where the President of the United States
heckles people for doing their civic duty of going under oath
to tell the truth.
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Woodall. Would my friend yield just one moment?
Mrs. Torres. I will absolutely yield to you.
Mr. Woodall. I was similarly shocked, as Mr. Raskin was,
when I heard folks were canceling their primaries. So since
South Carolina happens to be my neighbor, I went back and
looked. And it turns out that is just something that they do.
They did it for Reagan and Bush and they did it for Clinton and
Obama, that the party that is in power, has the White House, in
the name of saving dollars cancels it. And I share that with
you because I was comforted when I heard that it was a
historical practice as opposed to something that had just----
Mrs. Torres. And I appreciate----
Mr. Woodall. I thank my friend.
Mrs. Torres. I appreciate your feedback on that.
I am going to yield back to Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
So I think that the committee is going to take a 5-minute
break, so you can stretch your legs and do whatever else you
need to do.
Mrs. Torres. Breathe.
The Chairman. All right. This is a strict 5 minutes if we
can. Without objection, the committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Rules Committee will come to order.
I will now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
Dr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our witnesses for staying with us throughout all of
this. I know you have been through a lot already.
But I can't help but be struck by the fact that this does
seem to be proceeding rather rapidly. It did, after all, all
start with a phone call.
No, not with a phone call in July, but with a phone call in
November when Mollie Hemingway overheard incoming Chairman
Nadler talking to constituents on the telephone and said that
impeachment of the President was going to be of the highest
order.
So although there is not a transcript of that call, it was
well documented in social media, and that seems to be one of
the things that we can now use as evidence that can be
introduced.
Mr. Collins, correct me if I am wrong, but it does seem
like this is an exercise--and I think this is reflected in your
dissenting views that you submitted--this seems like
impeachment first, build a case second.
Mr. Collins. It does.
Dr. Burgess. And there is an inherent problem with that, of
course, in that the old saying goes: When your only tool is a
hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. And you have already
alluded to the clock and calendar. And I would also submit that
this does seem like we are busily trying to find the data that
would actually define the crimes that we can then prosecute the
crime.
The difficulty--and, again, this is reflected in your
minority views--the difficulties for future Presidents and,
indeed, future Congresses, it says in these dissenting views,
if partisan passions are not restrained, the House of
Representatives will be thrown into an endless cycle of
impeachment, foregoing its duty to legislate and usurping the
place of the American people in electing their President.
And we have seen a week or we are seeing a week this week
unlike any other that we have seen this year in that today we
voted on the appropriations for $1.4 trillion. We are going to
vote tomorrow, I think, on Articles of Impeachment. And then on
Thursday we are going to vote on approving a significant and
important trade authorization that has actually been basically
agreed to for the past year, but we are just now bringing it up
this week.
And I guess it just begs the question, the committees of
jurisdictions--certainly your committee has been involved in
this, a lot of time in your committee has been taken up with
this process. No question the Intelligence Committee has been
doing this work. I don't know if they had other work they
should have been doing this fall, but they have been doing this
work exclusively.
And, although I am a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and certainly we have our jurisdictional tussles with
the Committee on Ways and Means, it bothers me that the
committee on Ways and Means has had to give up their hearing
room for all of these weeks so that Intelligence and then
Judiciary could hold the hearings on the Articles of
Impeachment in the Ways and Means hearing room.
Does this bother anyone else that all of Congress'
attention has been diverted to this at the exclusion of every
other process?
Mr. Collins. It bothers me, believe me. I will let the Ways
and Means folks, no offense to them, I will let them keep their
room. I prefer Judiciary and others.
Look, I am not going to be one, I think we have had a large
number, especially the Judiciary Committee this year, we have
passed other bills, and I will disagree with those and there
were some we have actually made bipartisanly. But it has been a
start and stop process.
I remember when impeachment was taken away from us, is the
way we have described it, in September. We went, like, almost a
2, 2\1/2\-week period we didn't know what to do. I mean,
because we literally had been doing so much of investigation
and Mueller and everything that there was nothing in the
hopper, so to speak, for us to move forward on.
And the chairman did a good job, I think, trying to recover
from that. And I disagreed with some of the bills that we have
passed, but at least we had some other hearings.
I think over time, without elaborating on this a great
deal, I think the biggest issue that we have here is at the end
of the day I think there is a large decision being made, and
that decision is being made on we need to do this now--and I
disagree vehemently with the majority on this--we need to do
this now.
But I do, after taking a step back, look at the--because we
have had to live within the Judiciary, in particular, this
year, the institutional discussion and damage, as I would call
it, to our rules and our processes and our things. Those are
the things that concern me most, whether I am here or not.
Because the good thing--you know, the logical thing is most all
of us here will not be here in a number of years, whatever that
year may be, but there will be others.
And the Intelligence Committee is a committee you used to
never hear of. It was a committee that did its job in silence
in the dark in the basement. When I first got here Mike Rogers
and Mr. Ruppersberger, I thought they were combined, because
every time I saw them, I saw both of them together. And now it
has become a committee that I don't think it ever, ever
intended to be and I don't think it should have had this time.
It could have been handled differently. I may disagree with
the findings of my Judiciary colleagues and even Intel
colleagues, but this should have never been in Intel to start
with, and I just disagree inherently with that. There were
other committees that could have handled it properly. I just
don't think this is where it should be. But I know sort of--I
feel like I know why it was, but it just shouldn't have been
down there.
Dr. Burgess. Well, and the optics of having this done
absolutely in secret, in a secure compartmentalized facility
downstairs, not just in secret, but behind locked doors with
armed guards out front.
Mr. Collins. And especially when none of it was classified.
I mean, that is the whole different issue. If it was all
nonclassified, then why do that?
And, again, I am not going to--we are late in the day and I
am tired and everybody else is tired. There are reasons that it
was happening. But they did it for a purpose. They got the
intended result. But, again, it was not classified.
And really what bothered me was, you talk about the rules,
and I talked with the House parliamentarians and others, there
was no reason we could have not got that information before it
was decided to be released. I am a Member of Congress. I could
have went to any of those committees--and I did go to two of
those committees and was turned down to get that information
while it was going on.
That was just a flagrant violation of House rules. And you
can dress it up and make it look better and say, well, it was
all in a bigger cause, but that leads us down some pretty bad
roads as well.
Dr. Burgess. And I will tell you, you have been a member of
this committee in the past, so you know the responsibility that
rests with this committee. Anything that comes to the floor is
going to come through us. We set the rules and the parameters
around the debate. So it is an important job that is done up
here.
It certainly has bothered me that all of this activity was
done downstairs and in secret and we weren't allowed--even as a
member of the Rules Committee, I was not allowed to review the
transcripts until very late in the process. There is a lot of
material that was collected.
I knew that as a member of the Rules Committee eventually I
was going to be asked to render some sort of judgment, but it
was virtually impossible to keep up then with the volume of
information that when it came out, there was a lot that came
out.
You are also doing now your open hearings in both
Intelligence and then subsequently Judiciary, so there was a
lot of material with which to keep up.
But let me just ask you, were all of the transcripts that
were collected down in the Intelligence Committee secure room,
were all of those made available to all Members of Congress?
Mr. Collins. No. We still have one--we know of one that is
still out, that is the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community's report.
Dr. Burgess. May I ask, is that classified information?
Mr. Collins. You would have to ask Mr. Schiff, but he
doesn't seem to want to talk about that on the record. So, I
mean, he just keeps it--we don't have it.
But it also is a violation of 660. It is a violation,
clearly a violation of 660. The White House, we know, has not
got all the information sent to them. That is a clear violation
of 660.
Dr. Burgess. When you say 660----
Mr. Collins. That is House Resolution 660.
Dr. Burgess. The House resolution that authorized the
impeachment inquiry?
Mr. Collins. That came out of this committee, yes.
But I want to also say one thing, and, again, not to be--I
am not trying to be controversial here.
But you just made a statement that should really, frankly,
bother every Member, no matter what committee they serve on.
And I am not going to take any committee and name them. But you
said: I am on the Rules Committee, I couldn't go.
Any Member who wears a pin has the power and authority to
go look at those. And if we can't trust Members to go look at
those and do that as their job, then I really question why are
we doing this. I mean, because you can say, well, leaks. Well,
golly, that didn't stop the leaks from coming out of the rooms.
We had plenty of leaks.
But it didn't matter because when you stop Members from
being Members, then inherently no matter how good your, quote,
intention is or how breathless you think that the next election
is in peril, the moment you have to take down the liberties and
the rights and responsibilities of Members to get there, that
is a problem.
Dr. Burgess. Well, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I should have
brought copies of the letters that I sent to the Speaker and to
the chairman of the Intelligence Committee asking to review
those documents on a more contemporaneous basis. Because,
again, I knew we were going to get to this day. I knew this day
was coming in the Rules Committee, we were going to be asked to
vote on stuff that, again, just the sheer volume of information
that we now have to sort through in order to make an informed
decision for, yes, our constituents, but for other Members of
the entire House of Representatives, because they are all going
to be hanging on what we decide here tonight.
Mr. Collins. I agree. And I just want to add, because I am
not making this up and this is for any Member of the committee,
any Member watching right now, this is clause 2(e)(2)(a) of
Rule XI. This is a rule of the House.
And it was really interesting because they could have
waived a lot of this, but they didn't. This was always
available to us, but yet was denied by us on many occasions.
And, again, it just goes--no matter how desperate you are to
get to an end result, this is what concerns me this time next
year or the next year: When is this going to be brought back up
again?
Dr. Burgess. So let me just ask you, Mr. Collins, it seems
to me, and, in fact, the words in your minority views are that
the charges are vague and malleable, and I think my fellow
Texan, Mr. Ratcliffe, asked the question during--I think it was
during a Judiciary hearing, it may have been during an
Intelligence hearing, what was the crime? Were you aware in
talking to the witnesses, asked witnesses at the witness table,
what was the crime that you witnessed? And in general, what
answer was he given to that question?
Mr. Collins. That they witnessed none. And I think what the
majority is doing is taking full advantage of the political
nature of impeachment in nondefining to move forward with this.
Dr. Burgess. Which, of course, is one of the inherent
difficulties going forward. If you allow the charge to proceed
that is vague and malleable, it certainly can occur again under
different circumstances.
A lot has been said today about fact witnesses. And, well,
let me just ask you this. Was there anyone that you interviewed
during the Judiciary Committee proceedings that had direct
knowledge of the phone call?
Mr. Collins. I chuckle a little bit, because, again, we
didn't get to interview anybody. We had four law school
professors and two staff members. That is it.
And what was really interesting is, we had two
presentations, one of which--by the way, our witness actually
testified, he presented, and then had to testify under oath,
and then the one who presented for the Judiciary Committee
actually then left the presenting table and came and questioned
our member under oath and transferred out with the Intelligence
Committee staff member.
So, no. Like I said, I can't lay this out any better. But I
want to make it very clear and I have done this all day: I will
fight you, I will fight this on process and I will fight this
on facts. We win both. And I think that is what is coming out
the most in this.
Dr. Burgess. I am glad you brought up about process,
because we do get a lot of criticism that we are talking a lot
of process. This is the Rules Committee. That is kind of what
we do, is the process. You remember. You were on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Dr. Burgess. Well, there is a statement from Lieutenant
General Keith Kellogg, national security advisor to the Vice
President, and I am going to go read just a portion of this.
``I was on the much reported July 25 call between President
Donald Trump and President Zelensky. As an exceedingly proud
member of President Trump's administration and a 34-year highly
experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of
lieutenant general in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or
improper on the call. I have had no concerns.''
So was this--I mean, I am assuming this type of information
was made available to you while you were conducting your
hearing. Is that not correct?
Mr. Collins. He didn't testify. He submitted that.
Dr. Burgess. He submitted.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg's statement into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Burgess. Again, it just goes--you didn't have testimony
from an actual fact witness. As far as we know, no actual crime
was elucidated when Mr. Ratcliffe of Texas asked his questions
of the witnesses who were there.
So it gets to a point, where what are we doing? Why are we
doing this? And we do need to have a good answer for the
American people because they are going to be asking us these
questions, and they should ask us these questions.
And without an identifiable crime, with people who are
present when the telephone call was made who have significant
credentials and say there was nothing wrong and they witnessed
nothing improper, what are people to think?
Mr. Collins. Well, I agree with your assessment here and
this is one of the reasons we brought out the problems that we
have been bringing out.
But, again, I will also have to say, I have done everything
I possibly can do in my side and I know my colleagues have as
well. I am not going to have to answer that question. Everybody
who votes yes tomorrow is going to have to answer that
question.
Dr. Burgess. And I think that is an excellent point.
Everyone who votes yes tomorrow will have to answer those
questions.
Let me ask you just one last thing, and it has to do with
the transcript--not the transcript of the telephone calls, but
the fact that phone calls were released as part of--and I know
it wasn't your report, it was the Intelligence Committee's
report that detailed telephone calls. The transcripts of the
calls themselves were not revealed, just who made calls to
whom.
I have got to tell you, of all of the things that we have
encountered in this, that is the one that I have gotten the
greatest amount of anxiety back home. People ask me: Wait a
minute, they intercepted a call from the President's lawyer to
the President?
I mean, that is pretty serious stuff. They intercepted a
call from a Member of Congress? I realize that we are not held
in very high regard outside of this room, but still a Member of
Congress was listed on that form and not given an opportunity
to know about that before their name was listed? That seems to
me to be really going too far.
Mr. Collins. Well, look, and I have said this--I have
testified to this before. The subpoenas that were issued were
valid subpoenas, they got the numbers, they did the metadata,
they got the stuff, and they matched numbers.
But to say that there wasn't a determination as we look to
do these calls into how those numbers, such as the ranking
member, such as the member of the media, and others, even if
you wanted--even if you just grossly in your mind could come to
the conclusion it was okay to know that, at what point was it
okay to put it in that report and not say anything about it?
There was no reason to put that in the report. I mean, it
is the unindicted co-conspirator kind of thing, and I have
heard this already. Well, that is even more of a smear on a
Member of Congress. Well, we didn't really do anything wrong,
but that is what we do.
No. That should never have happened. There was ways to do
it. Mr. Goldman had no answer for that. In fact, he was very
uncomfortable because then he told us he wasn't going to talk
about how they did their investigation, which is problematic
even further, because we are the committee, this is our one
chance to actually look into how the sort of methodology was
that went behind it.
And, again, look, it is very important to Members of
Congress and it should be on both sides of the aisle doing
that, because at the end of the day it did not make their case
better, it did not make their case stronger, it did not make
their case any better except for the simple fact that all of a
sudden when this report came out, there was about 15 or 20 or
30 or 40 or 50 or 500 media outlets that picked that up. And it
just inherited this story of----
Dr. Burgess. It snowballed.
Mr. Collins. It snowballed. And that is I think exactly
what they wanted. Because, frankly, if I had the report that I
had to put out, I would want something to take attention away
from it. And that is sort of what they did. They threw it in
there as a gratuitous that meant nothing. But it just goes to
show how rushed and how partisan this has become, and that
should scare everyone.
Dr. Burgess. So in your opinion that was a diversionary
tactic?
Mr. Collins. I think it was a tactic to say: Look at what
else we have done here and also look at the ranking member,
let's look at the others. All this involved, I think it was
just simply--again, without going into the mind of Mr. Schiff,
who I would actually blame for this, Mr. Goldman not, we don't
know. What was your reason for doing that, what was your reason
for putting his name in there, except to make a point, because
you all had been publicly feuding for a long time about how
this process is going? Why else would you put it in there?
Because there was no other evidentiary value for it.
Dr. Burgess. As a practical matter, let me just share with
you as a rank-and-file Member of Congress, humble back bencher
that I am, we talk about damage to national security. This was
damaging to national security. The release of that information
and the way it was released was damaging to national security,
because you and I are going to have to make a determination,
and I realize it is not quite the same thing, but the
reauthorization of 215 of the PATRIOT Act is going to come in
front of us at some point. And how am I supposed to vote for
the collection of amorphous metadata to be held in some place
until its queried by one of our intelligence----
Mr. Collins. Yeah. And I appreciate that. I think this is
definitely two conversations to have on a different level. And
I agree with your concerns and I have had similar concerns.
My concern more with this is how we treat each other, and I
think this is where this hits for me, is how we are treating
each other, and not the fact that we can disagree vehemently.
And we have had great times up here. And I can remember Mr.
Hastings and I, I appreciate Mrs. Torres talking about our
inside voices. Mr. Hastings and I have sometimes not used our
inside voices in here, and it is just because we get passionate
about what we do. But we have done that. But we disagree
vehemently.
But I would never think about taking a report that didn't--
and put his name in it in a derogatory way that had nothing of
value to add to my report. I just wouldn't have thought that.
And so if that is the level that we have gotten to, no
matter what you believe about the facts, no matter what you
believe about the President, the phone call, the transcript,
the witnesses or anything else, to do things like that that
have these gratuitous kind of political I call it hit job in
the middle of a report that didn't have to be there, that does
not benefit you at all, is a problem.
Dr. Burgess. Just one last observation. And I appreciate
your comments. We had, as you mentioned, you did have one panel
of witnesses. There were four witnesses, one of which you
selected. I do wish you would have selected someone who had
actually voted for the President. That would have made me feel
better.
However, I thought the witness you did select did a very
good job. And certainly, I mean, as you recall, he came and
testified here at the Rules Committee at one point when we were
contemplating illegal action against then President Obama over
some part of the Affordable Care Act we thought had been
administered improperly. So I always enjoy listening to Mr.
Turley testify.
His statement that he is concerned about the lowering of
impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an
abundance of anger, I mean, I think those are the words that
are going to echo down throughout history.
That is what this exercise has been all about, very little
facts and a great deal of anger--anger at the President, anger
at the American people for electing him--and it reverberates
over and over and over again. I have said before in this
committee, that is not a good look for us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And he had mentioned he had sent several inquiries to our
leadership. I think we will probably be here for a little while
longer if your staff want to collect them. We are more than
happy to make them part of the record.
I would also say that those of us who vote yes on
impeachment obviously have to answer to our constituents. Those
who vote no have to answer to their constituents as well.
Mr. Collins. I fully agree, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. These are votes of conscience. I have not
been a supporter of the President when he ran for President.
That is no secret. But I assure you that my vote for
impeachment is based on my strong belief that what he did rises
to the level of an impeachable offense.
And I genuinely believe, as I have said over and over and
over again, that we see a crime in progress, and I am worried
about the next election. And that is why there is urgency here.
And I appreciate the conversation you just had. It is all
fine and relevant about getting in the weeds over the
investigation. But we also need to talk about the President's
behavior and what he did.
I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, first, I would like to introduce into the record four
things.
The oath that the Senators have to take of impartiality if
they sit as jurors in a trial on impeachment.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Perlmutter. Second, a letter from 700 historians, their
statement on the impeachment of President Trump.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Perlmutter. Third is the editorial from USA Today
dated, I think, December 12, concerning impeachment of
President Trump.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Perlmutter. And fourth is a law review article in the
Colorado Lawyer by a gentleman named Scott Barker called ``An
Overview of Presidential Impeachment.''
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Collins. Mr. McGovern.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, I have a very unusual request,
but as a former Member, I would just like to ask, USA Today, I
had actually the response to that editorial in that same paper.
The Chairman. You want to put that in?
Mr. Collins. Could I put that in as well?
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Collins. There you go. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. You have to put my letter to the editor, too.
The Chairman. Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. I would like to read a statement and then
ask some questions of my two colleagues here.
The President should be impeached. His actions were an
abuse of power that jeopardizes America's national security and
compromises our elections. No one is above the law and that
includes the President.
By withholding almost $400 million Ukraine desperately
needed to defend itself against Russia until Ukraine did the
President's political bidding, the President committed High
Crimes and Misdemeanors for which he should be impeached under
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and Article II, Section 4 of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
This abuse of power is compounded by the President's
refusal to cooperate with Congress' impeachment investigation
and his stonewalling of witnesses from testifying or turning
over documents to Congress.
Almost 14,000 people have been killed since Russia invaded
Ukraine. Withholding $400 million Congress appropriated to help
Ukraine defend herself unless Ukraine helped the President dig
up dirt on his political rival Joe Biden was the last straw for
me. People's lives and our national security were placed at
risk. This was more than paying hush money for strippers,
profiting from foreign governments staying at resort
properties, or even obstructing justice as laid out in the
Mueller report.
The Founders fought and died for freedom and independence
from a tyrannical ruler in a foreign government. Impeachment
and removal from office was the remedy they included in the
Constitution to act as a check on a President who placed
himself above the law, abused his power for his own personal
benefit, and invited foreign governments to get involved in our
domestic affairs, especially our elections. A President who
flaunts the separation of powers and checks and balances in our
Constitution and who refuses to allow witnesses to appear
before Congress would receive our Founders' universal
condemnation.
Treating taxpayer money as his own to extort a, ``favor,''
from a foreign government to aid him in his reelection goes to
the very heart of concerns raised by our Nation's Founders when
they drafted and advocated for impeachment to act as a check on
the awesome powers of the chief executive.
For instance, Madison said in Federalist 47: ``The
accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny.''
He went on to say during the Constitutional Convention,
``The executive will have great opportunities of abusing his
power,'' and further that a President, ``might betray his trust
to foreign powers.''
George Washington's farewell address warned of ``foreign
influence and corruption'' which leads to the, ``policy and
will,'' of America being ``subjected to the policy and will of
another.''
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65 that impeachment,
``proceeds from the misconduct of public men, from the abuse or
violation of a public trust.''
The USA Today editorial board stated it perfectly when they
wrote in their December 12, 2019, editorial, quote: ``In his
thuggish effort to trade American arms for foreign dirt on
former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump
resembles not so much Clinton as he does Richard Nixon, another
corrupt President who tried to cheat his way to reelection.''
``This isn't party politics as usual,'' they go on to say, ``it
is precisely the misconduct the Framers had in mind when they
wrote impeachment into the Constitution.''
Impeachment is the remedy the Founders placed in the
Constitution to remove a President during his or her term of
office. This is especially true when the misconduct involves an
upcoming election.
The President invited foreign participation in our
elections at least three times, first, with, ``Russia, if you
are listening;'' second, with his demands on Ukraine to, ``do
us a favor though;'' and third, with his request for China to
get involved in the 2020 election by starting, ``an
investigation into the Bidens.''
Any further delay or simply allowing the election cycle to
run its course results in the harm and abuse impeachment was
designed to prevent. For the sake of the Constitution, fair
elections free of foreign interference, and our national
security, President Trump should be impeached.
So, obviously, and to my friends, we have very different
opinions about this. And we work up here in the Rules Committee
a lot of hours. We respect one another. But for me this goes to
the heart of the Constitution.
And to my friend, Mr. Collins, you and I couldn't disagree
more on this.
And I would want to compliment my friend. My guess is that
as an attorney--and you kind of come off with that country
attorney kind of approach and a number of us think of ourselves
as kind of country attorneys--my first question just is sort of
a general proposition to you, sir, and to you, Mr. Raskin.
Do you as an attorney understand the terminology ``time is
of the essence''? Do you know what that means, Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Yeah.
Mr. Perlmutter. What does it mean?
Mr. Collins. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Perlmutter. Because, as you would say, the clock is
ticking.
Would you agree with that, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, the clock is ticking on the 2020
election, and I think we would all agree that if this
impeachment were held in July or August or September, drawn way
out, that time is of the essence; that that would really affect
the 2020 election.
So I appreciate the gentleman's statement that, oh, this
has been rushed and there just hasn't been enough time and all
of that sort of stuff, but time is of the essence.
And this instance began, at least what started it all--and
Mr. Hastings introduced this into the record, the memo of July
25, 2019, which generally transcribes, but not completely
transcribes, the President's conversation, or parts thereof,
with President Zelensky.
And we were talking about it and you used the word
transcript and Mr. Hastings said memo. I mean, it is a
memorandum of a telephone conversation and it is not a verbatim
transcript. And it goes, down at the bottom, the word
``inaudible'' is used to indicate portions of a conversation
that the note-taker was unable to hear.
So I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Collins, and
you, too, Mr. Raskin, just in terms of the completeness of this
document. Because I think that this document, even with things
that are not transcribed, is a pretty damning piece of evidence
against the President. And then I think Mr. Mulvaney's comments
a month later saying, oh, we do this all the time and get over
it, that, too, is damning.
But the President says--this is right after Mr. Zelensky
says we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps,
specifically, we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the
United States for defense purposes--the President's next words
are, our President: ``I would like you to do us a favor though,
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike, dot,
dot, dot.''
Gentlemen, in your experience, what does dot, dot, dot
mean?
Mr. Raskin, I will start with you.
Mr. Raskin. What do ellipses mean?
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes. Something is left out.
Mr. Raskin. Well, yeah. Yeah. So, right. What we can say
generally, that something to be continued, but we don't know
specifically what in every case, but you try to deduce it from
the context.
Mr. Perlmutter. And I assume, Mr. Collins, you would agree
with that.
Mr. Collins. To a point. But I will say, in effect----
Mr. Perlmutter. Was that a yes?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. So then it goes on: ``I guess you
have one of your wealthy people, dot, dot, dot, the server,
comma, they say Ukraine has it.''
So, again, just in that one paragraph, right after
President Zelensky says, we are ready to buy the Javelins for
our defense, there are missing pieces to this memorandum. And
it doesn't say the word ``inaudible'' is used to indicate
portions of a conversation that the note-taker was unable to
hear, does it, in your readings, gentlemen?
Mr. Raskin. No.
Mr. Perlmutter. I guess that is a no.
So this document--and Mr. Burgess was going into the
classified nature and why was everybody down in the
Intelligence room downstairs--just looking at it on its face,
it says, and it is crossed out now, and you--apparently it was
an inadvertent error.
But can you tell me, Mr. Collins, when this memorandum, up
at the top, there is a cross-out, and I think underneath the
cross-out it says, secret, slash, slash, ORCON, slash, NOFORN.
Do either of you know what those--what that means?
Mr. Collins. The President declassified the document, so it
could be made----
Mr. Perlmutter. But what is it? My question was, what is
that?
Mr. Collins. That means that it is not normally put out to
the public. We don't normally transmit the telephone calls
between two world leaders and our President doesn't do that.
And in an order of transparency he did it in this case, so that
means it is a declassification.
Mr. Perlmutter. So this--so----
Mr. Collins. There is no----
Mr. Perlmutter. No, no, wait a second. But earlier you said
it was an inadvertent error. But now you are saying that, oh,
when there are conversations between two foreign leaders we
mark it as secret?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mr. Perlmutter. Or ORCON or NOFORN?
Mr. Collins. No, we are talking two different things.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. So--but initially----
Mr. Collins. You and I are talking two different things.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Collins, initially this document was
treated as classified and secret, top secret, was it not?
Mr. Collins. If you let me explain here, because we are
talking two different things.
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Then we don't. Then I won't answer.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Mr. Raskin, you go ahead and answer
it.
Mr. Raskin. So I am not certain I can completely answer
that, Mr. Perlmutter, but can I just try to answer where I
think you are going. Here is what I would say about this.
There is no mystery here, right? As you stated, Mr.
Perlmutter, the July 25 contemporaneous memorandum itself is
overwhelmingly damning of the President's designs on President
Zelensky. You add that up with everything that came before and
everything that came after, and it is all uncontradicted. To
me, it looks like it is case closed.
Let's talk about July 26, the next day.
Mr. Perlmutter. I think that is a good idea.
Mr. Raskin. The day after the July 25 call, the President
called Ambassador Sondland. That is his ambassador to the EU,
but he is part of the Three Amigos who were working on getting
Zelensky to do the President's will. Okay. He called Ambassador
Sondland to ask whether President Zelensky was going to do the
investigation.
Ambassador Sondland stated that President Zelensky was
going do it and would do anything you asked him to, and then he
famously said, he loves your ass.
According to David Holmes, who overheard the conversation,
or part of the conversation, Ambassador Sondland and President
Trump spoke only about the investigation in their discussion
about Ukraine. There was nothing about the war, nothing about
corruption, and so on.
And after Sondland hung up the phone, he told Holmes that
President Trump--forgive me now, I hope my children aren't
watching--but he told Holmes that President Trump did not give
a shit about Ukraine. Rather, he explained, the President cared
only about the big stuff. The big stuff was the stuff that
benefited him personally, like, quote, the Biden investigation
that Mr. Giuliani was pitching.
This is not an Agatha Christie mystery. There is no alibi.
There is no alternative hypothesis of the facts. The President
went after exactly what he wanted. And we know that our
President is very capable of stating what he wants and telling
people what his will is.
Mr. Perlmutter. So let's talk about that for a couple
seconds.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you would like to get moving. But
I just have a few more questions.
So Holmes, Mr. Raskin, was the political counselor at the
U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, right?
Mr. Raskin. Correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. And his job was, and I think in his words,
quote, gather information about Ukraine's internal politics,
foreign relations, security policies, and report back to
Washington, represent U.S. policies to foreign contacts, and
advise the ambassador on policy development and implementation.
I think that comes from his opening remarks.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. So going back to kind of the questions I
was asking Mr. Collins and you about the secret nature of this
memo, at least initially, which it was unclassified 2 months
later, 2 months later, Holmes testified: ``Contrary to standard
procedure, the embassy received no readout of the call'' and he
``was unaware of what was discussed until the transcript was
released on September 25.'' Is that your understanding?
Mr. Raskin. Say that once more.
Mr. Perlmutter. That he, Holmes, was unaware of what was
discussed----
Mr. Raskin. Correct.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Even though it was ordinary
procedure that he would get to know something like that, until
this thing was released 2 months later----
Mr. Raskin. Correct.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. And taken out of the top
secret server?
Mr. Raskin. That is right. And my recollection is, he was
not on the July call.
Mr. Perlmutter. Even though it was a supposed inadvertent
error to put it in the top secret server.
So you kind of glossed over a couple of kind of cruder
terms that Sondland was saying in connection with this call
between himself and the President, but Holmes, as you said, he
could hear, could he not, the phone conversation between
Ambassador Sondland and President Trump.
Mr. Raskin. He could hear it.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And I think Holmes' testimony was:
``Ambassador Sondland . . . went on to state that President
Zelensky `loves your ass.' I then heard President Trump ask: So
he's gonna do the investigation? Ambassador Sondland replied
that `he's gonna do it,' adding that President Zelensky will do
`anything you ask him to.' ''
And then his remarks about whether the President cared
about Ukraine or not, but actually Holmes' final statement was:
``I noted that there was `big stuff ' going on in Ukraine, like
a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he
meant `big stuff ' that benefits the President, like the `Biden
investigation' that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.''
So a couple more things that I think have to be discussed,
and that was Mr. Taylor--and you mentioned this. The
individuals who testified--and, by the way, I would say to my
friend, Mr. Collins, that you said, oh, we didn't get any
witnesses. Well, you had Mr. Castor, you had your--Mr. Turley
testified.
And then the Intelligence Committee, if I am correct, had
at least three witnesses that the Republicans called. And I
would agree with Mr. Raskin that these aren't witnesses for or
against the defense, although I got to compliment you, I think
you have been a heck of a defense counsel so far because the
record has gotten pretty muddy. And the old saying in law
school that I went to: If you don't have a fact, do your best
to distract.
Mr. Collins. I have the truth.
Mr. Perlmutter. Huh?
Mr. Collins. I have the truth.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, so the three witnesses that the
minority called during the investigation, Ambassador Volker,
Under Secretary Hale, and Mr. Morrison, so at least five
witnesses.
Plus, Mr. Raskin, you said that a number of other witnesses
were called, like Mr. Bolton and Secretary Pompeo, Mr.
Mulvaney.
So I want the record to reflect that plenty of witnesses
were called. And the President has had the opportunity to call
witnesses. He was invited--he and his staff were invited to
participate in an investigation, were they not?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Perlmutter. And they just chose not to?
Mr. Raskin. I mean, we were very disappointed that he chose
not to participate, just like we were disappointed when he
executed his plan to blockade witnesses from coming and refused
to turn over any subpoenaed documents.
Mr. Perlmutter. Just a comment that came out of testimony
by Mr. Taylor, because those individuals that did testify were
either decorated war heroes, individuals who have been public
servants working in the intelligence community, the State
Department, a whole range of things over the course of decades
under both Republicans and Democrats, and Mr. Taylor was one of
those. What was his background, if you recall?
Mr. Raskin. He was a Vietnam war hero and had spent his
life in, first, the military service and then the civilian
service of the country.
And I think he was, if I am remembering correctly, he was
scandalized about the treatment of Ambassador Yovanovitch, who
was the target of an unprecedented smear campaign by people
working directly with the President, including Rudy Giuliani.
She was somebody who worked for America and fought for our
foreign policy priorities in Ukraine. She described herself as
completely nonpartisan. She had a family background of fleeing
persecution from totalitarian regimes.
And they just decided to set her up and to describe her as
a tool of George Soros and somebody who was on the side of the
corrupt and so on, until finally the President decided to
recall her and bring her back.
That is a scandalous chapter in American history that that
was allowed to happen to one of our ambassadors, and it was all
to clear the way for the shakedown of President Zelensky,
because as Mr. Giuliani said today, he is quoted in the paper
today, she was in the way of the plan to get from President
Zelensky what the President wanted.
Mr. Perlmutter. Last thing. In Ambassador Taylor's
testimony he was talking about conversations with Ambassador
Sondland. And in one of those conversations Ambassador Taylor
said Ambassador Sondland told him,: ``President Trump had told
him,'' Sondland, ``he wants President Zelensky to state
publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged
Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election . . . In fact,
Ambassador Sondland said everything was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that
President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a box, making
public statements about ordering such an investigation.''
Earlier you referred to putting President Zelensky----
Mr. Raskin. That is absolutely right. And, you know, if I
had to pick one quote for people to remember from Ambassador
Taylor, it is when he said: As I said on the phone, I think it
is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a
political campaign.
And that was in a text message that he was engaged in. I
believe that was with Sondland and Volker. I think it is crazy
to withhold security assistance for help with a political
campaign. That was on September 9, 2019.
Mr. Perlmutter. Last question I would like to ask you is
concerning Mr. Giuliani, who you just mentioned. And in that
Taylor deposition, there is a reference to a New York Times
article concerning Mr. Giuliani's role, and it is an article
from May 9, 2019, which says, ``Mr. Giuliani said he plans to
travel to Kyiv, Ukrainian capital, in the coming days to meet
with the nation's President-elect to urge him to pursue
inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield
new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr.
Trump. One is the origin of the special counsel's investigation
into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The other is
the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden, Jr.'s son
in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.''
So this is in May of 2019. The ambassadors were told they
should work with Mr. Giuliani. And their testimony, again, from
the Sondland deposition, is they were ``disappointed by the
President's direction that we involve Mr. Giuliani. Our view is
that men and women of the State Department, not the President's
personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of
U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine.''
Do you recall that testimony?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, Mr. Sondland, and I don't know who
came up with the name Three Amigos, apparently referring to
Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, and Ambassador Perry,
they had a couple choices. They could work with Mr. Giuliani or
not.
And in his testimony, Mr. Sondland says in working with Mr.
Giuliani that, ``all communications flowed through Rudy
Giuliani.'' He determined, in his testimony, he said: ``This
turned out to be a mistake. But I did not understand until much
later that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have included an effort
to prompt Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his
son, or to involve Ukrainians directly or indirectly in the
President's 2020 reelection campaign.''
Do you recall that testimony?
Mr. Raskin. Whose statement was that that was----
Mr. Perlmutter. From the Sondland deposition, at page 26.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah, I recall reading that, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Well, the articles that the Judiciary
Committee has brought talk about an abuse of power, talk about
betrayal of national security, talk about corruption. Are these
the kinds of pieces of evidence that support the articles that
your committee drafted that you would like the whole House to
vote on tomorrow?
Mr. Raskin. Yes. It was a vote of 23 to 17 in committee.
The majority felt we were brought to the inescapable conclusion
that the President of the United States had abused his power in
sweeping and systematic ways for personal purposes, by bringing
a foreign government into our elections in order to alter our
political destiny as a people, and he proceeded to obstruct
justice in order to cover that up.
That is a pattern that we saw again from the 2016 campaign.
And the President has demonstrated his unrepentance, he has
pronounced his behavior perfect and absolutely perfect, and
assures us that Article II of the Constitution gives him the
power to do whatever he wants to do. So we have a very clear
choice as a country right now.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, and to end with that, in fact, I
think the President actually said a couple days before the
conversation with Mr. Zelensky that Article II of the
Constitution allows him to, ``do whatever I want as
President.''
And I think that is the problem, that is the core of the
issue, that we are in a democratic republic, that we have a
framework of laws, of checks and balances that limit a
President from doing something like that or to entangle other
governments in our politics and in our domestic affairs, and
that is why we have brought these Articles of Impeachment, and
that is why I am going to vote for them tomorrow.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Perlmutter, before you yield back, because
I always like to ask--because I am going to answer this
question one way or the other, and I would love to answer it
with you----
Mr. Perlmutter. Sure.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Going back to our original. And
the two issues we hear that you have said that is not for
foreign sharing, that was what is always listed on these--you
are going back to----
Mr. Perlmutter. So now you are going to have to speak a
little slower for me.
Mr. Collins. Yeah, no problem.
Mr. Perlmutter. I haven't interrupted you before, but
please.
Mr. Collins. No, you did fine. And that was mine. It was
mine.
What I wanted to make sure was my clarification in my
answer in respect to your question. It was two separate things
we were talking about. I was talking about that Mr. Morrison
said it was put on the other server by an administrative
mistake.
All of these conversations that they have with foreign
leaders are marked the way that one is marked, unless the
President himself declassifies it, that not for sharing with
foreign government, that is that not foreign on there, then you
also have the secret classification which was struck through
because he declassified it.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So that brings to light--and I
appreciate. Thank you for clarifying that.
So in his testimony, Mr. Holmes also said that it was
unusual for him not to get a readout. I think the term was
``readout'' of the call. Do you know whether that was unusual
or not, or you just have to accept his testimony?
Mr. Collins. That would be his testimony. It is not
something that I would--could talk about.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. No, and I thank you for----
Mr. Collins. But I wanted to clarify it, and I wanted to do
it with you because I could do it in a minute, but I wanted to
do it with you just to have that----
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank you for clarifying your answer.
Mr. Collins. No problem. Thank you.
Mr. Perlmutter. I yield back to the gentleman.
The Chairman. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from
Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, who not only has the privilege of serving
on the Rules Committee and sitting through this hearing today
but also in the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. Lesko. I know. I am going to dream impeachment in my
arguments, I think. Although, to me, it is a nightmare, quite
frankly.
Mr. Chairman, before I start asking questions, and I have
several of them--sorry, Mr. Collins and Mr. Raskin--I would
like to ask unanimous consent to include my statement on these
Articles of Impeachment into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lesko. And, Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent
to include President Trump's letter to Speaker Pelosi into the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection. And I was going to do it
at the end, but you beat me to it.
Mrs. Lesko. I beat you to it.
The Chairman. I think it is important to have that part of
the record, having just read it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lesko. All right. Before I get into my questions, I
just want to--I thought it was very interesting, I had staff
look up votes on impeachment. And, Chairman McGovern, at the
beginning in your, I believe, opening statement, you said
something to the effect that no Democratic Congressman or woman
on the Rules Committee has voted for the Articles of
Impeachment before. I think that is----
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. What you said, right?
The Chairman. I did.
Mrs. Lesko. And, boy, I think that is a little disputable
or maybe a little misleading, I am not sure, but I can tell
you, I have here the final vote result for--it was H.
Resolution 646, and it was dated December 6, 2017, 58
Democrats, including many on this committee, voted to advance
an Article of Impeachment for the high crime or misdemeanor of
dissing the NFL anthem protest and calling a Member of Congress
wacky.
This was a House resolution that Mr. Green introduced, and
all nine of the Democratic members on the Rules Committee voted
to table it, which means that if this was--or against tabling
it, I am sorry, let me clarify--against tabling it, which means
if it wasn't tabled, you would have voted on the floor of the
House of Representatives to impeach the President of the United
States.
The Chairman. Well, if the gentlelady would yield just for
a correction. the intent was to vote to advance it to the
Judiciary Committee, because that is--you know, I voted against
tabling because I wanted to send it to the Judiciary Committee
where I thought that was the appropriate way to deal with it.
So I stand by what I said. Nobody in this House has yet
voted on an Article of Impeachment. And tomorrow will be,
assuming we get them a rule, will be the first time that
anybody, Democrat or Republican, will have that opportunity.
But thank you for letting me clarify the record.
Mrs. Lesko. And thank you. And with all due respect, I
asked my staff that because you had said that in your opening
statement, and I said, is that accurate? And they said, no,
that would be if there was a referral. This was actually
Articles of Impeachment on the floor of the House of
Representatives that if it had not been tabled, you actually
would have been voting on the floor of the House of
Representatives for Articles of Impeachment against the
President.
The one that was on December 6, 2017, was because you
didn't think--you didn't like that President Trump said
something negative about the NFL anthem protest and called a
Member of Congress wacky, and all nine of you--all nine of you
here voted against tabling that.
Mr. Morelle. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if I
could just interrupt. I don't think Ms. Scanlon, myself, or Ms.
Shalala were Members of the House.
Mrs. Lesko. Oh, oh, oh. This is--I was on the wrong one. I
apologize. Thank you for pointing that out to me. This one was
Mr. McGovern, Hastings, Raskin, and DeSaulnier voted against
tabling. So there is another one where it is all nine. So I
mis-----
The Chairman. Tabling what? What are we talking about,
impeachment or----
Mrs. Lesko. Yes. It was House Resolution 646. It was--the
staff has told me, they were Articles of Impeachment on the
floor of the House of Representatives, and Representative
McGovern, Hastings, Raskin, and DeSaulnier voted against
tabling, meaning that if it wasn't tabled, you would have been
able to vote on the floor for Articles of Impeachment.
Then on January 19, 2018, House Resolution 705--and I have
this one right here--66 Democrats, including many on this
committee, voted to advance impeachment for the high crime or
misdemeanor of President Trump's rhetoric. And on that one, Mr.
McGovern, Hastings, Raskin, and DeSaulnier all voted against
tabling, so meaning that if it wasn't tabled, there would have
been a vote.
Then on this one, more recent----
The Chairman. Well, let me just--if the gentlelady would
yield. If there was a vote, you don't know how we would have
voted on it. I mean, I appreciate it, but I mean--and, again,
you can go on.
Mrs. Lesko. Right.
The Chairman. I would just simply say that, you know, we
could have this conversation, it has nothing to do with the
Articles of Impeachment that are before us right now, but I am
happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. A lot of what has been
said today hasn't had anything to do with Articles of
Impeachment. But this, I believe, does because it proves to me
that it was predetermined that you are going to impeach a
President of the United States and you are just searching
around for anything or anything to impeach him on.
So impeachment number three, on July 17, 2019, House
Resolution 498, 95 Democrats, including many chairmen and many
members of this committee--in fact, let's see, I have Mr.
McGovern, Torres, Raskin, Scanlon, DeSaulnier, all voted
against tabling--voted to advance impeachment for the high
crime or misdemeanor of insulting the squad.
And so, Mr. Collins, my question to you is, do you think
the fact that so many of our Democratic colleagues, both 17 out
of 24 Judiciary Committee members that are Democratic, and
here, a number of my Democratic colleagues on the Rules
Committee, voted to move forward Articles of Impeachment prior
to the July 25, 2019, phone call that the Democrats are using
as their central case for impeaching the President, do you
think that that kind of undermines their argument?
Mr. Collins. As I stated earlier today, I do believe that
it is true, and we have seen this over time.
Mrs. Lesko. And, Mr. Collins, do you also think that moving
Articles of Impeachment against the President on--because he
dissed the NFL anthem protest, against his rhetoric, and
against insulting the squad kind of lowered the bar for
impeachment?
Mr. Collins. I think we have seen a lot of those things
that has happened in the last--you know, this Congress and the
last Congress as well. I think a lot of this does. I think this
lowers the bar for impeachment, and I think it is just
something that we are having to plow through at this point.
And, you know, again, they have the votes, and they will move
it forward.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Collins, earlier, much earlier, Mr. Raskin had
said something--he was comparing how the closed-door hearings
that Adam Schiff did were comparable to what Ken Starr did in
the Clinton impeachment. But isn't it true that Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee asked to have Mr. Schiff testify, like
Ken Starr did, and the Democrats refused us?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
And I also want to--I think you already addressed this, Mr.
Collins, but another statement Mr. Raskin said earlier was
there was no evidence Trump tried to root out corruption prior
to Joe Biden becoming candidate, or something to the effect.
And I just, from what I have heard, that is absolutely false,
and I wanted to hear what you said.
I was told that Trump actually had a meeting with the
former Ukrainian, Poroshenko, concerned about corruption in
Ukraine prior to giving him aid, and also that two of the
witnesses, Democrat witnesses, testified that all along Trump
was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Is that accurate?
Mr. Collins. That was the testimony of the witnesses, yes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
And also another thing that I want to clear up for the
record, Mr. Raskin said previously that this same process that
we are doing now was done--it is the same process that was used
in the Clinton impeachment. Mr. Collins, do you agree with
that? Because I sure don't.
Mr. Collins. No, I do not.
Mrs. Lesko. And would you care to expand--expound?
Mr. Collins. Yeah. I mean, I think there is a lot of
different things here, and, again, I think it goes back to the
inherent nature of what we are dealing with today, and that is,
frankly, the only bipartisan nature of this impeachment is
``no.'' It is not bipartisan in the sense of seeing it should
go forward; it is bipartisan in ``no,'' and that will be the
only bipartisan that you will see tomorrow.
Now, again, my friends across the aisle will say that they
are standing for truth, and I get that, and that is fine. That
is their argument. And my argument will be that it is--you
know, everything that we have talked about so far. And that is
also why at a certain point in time we continue to go on here.
But I think when you look at the actual things that were
going on, you know, the issues of how witnesses are called, how
you dealt with an outside counsel--and, again, it was also said
earlier that the Starr--the Judiciary Committee handled the
Starr faster than this, that is not true. It was longer than
this going through, once it got to Judiciary.
There was several--I mean, there was 2\1/2\ weeks set up
before the first impaneling of scholarly witnesses. I mean, so
we never had that. We didn't have barely 2\1/2\ weeks of the
entire thing. So when you look at it from those--and I think
there is just--again, I have argued here today, and I feel
comfortable in my argument today that I have argued both the
process problems and the factual problems. I have not been
afraid to back away from either. We can genuinely disagree with
that. That is why we are here tonight. If we didn't disagree
with this, we wouldn't be here.
So I think, you know, moving this forward at a late hour
and just discussing the facts that this is, you know, an issue
we have. I will say something that it needs clarification,
again, I know from my Democratic friends it will not matter,
but it does, I think, need to be at least added to the record.
And it has been brought up that Mr. Mulvaney on several times,
you know, on his comments on that was the way it was done, get
over it, it was also referring to general conditions placed on
foreign aid to all countries, and he did clarify his statement
later.
If we have gotten to the point where we can't clarify
statements--and I get that, because if it doesn't fit the
narrative, we don't do that--then we do have an issue and a
problem, because there is not a one of us in here at the
witness table or at the dais who has not misspoke at some point
in their life and, you know, possibly even today. So, I mean,
we just have to look at it from that perspective and go
forward.
Look, I think we are--I made all the points that I think,
frankly, we can make. I would love to have seen this done
differently. It does concern me that the future is now
predicated on this. And like I said, it is just a concern that
the bar is at a certain point now to where it is anything you
want it to make it.
It has always been a concern, but the Founders were
concerned about many things from foreign influence to different
things, but they were also very concerned about this being an
overreach in the branches that impeachment, you know, could be
used in a partisan way or as the quote actually was is whoever
had the most votes basically, who was stronger in their
majority.
Well, and that is very true in the House, and I think that
is why it is resting in the House. And that is why I agree with
my friend on the Constitution side, it rests in the House for a
reason, because we are the--it is the same reason taxes and
spending have to originate here. We are the closest to the
people that actually do this.
So I think this is normal that impeachment would be here. I
just don't want it to become that it is, frankly, this--you
don't even have to jump to clear the bar anymore, and I think
that is the concern I have about impeachment is--going forward
now.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
I am going to actually turn to the actual bill, and I am on
page 2 now under Article I, abuse of power. And I read: ``The
Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall
have the sole power of impeachment and that the President shall
be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of
treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.''
So, Mr. Collins, I have a question for you. Were any of the
Democrats' fact witnesses able to establish that the President
committed treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors?
Mr. Collins. No, not in the sense of the way that was laid
out. And, again--and I have made this comment earlier, and I
appreciate the gentlelady for bringing this up, they are not
depending on a crime, okay, and that is fact. And they are
willing to admit that. I freely give that. They are not
depending on a crime. They are depending on a pattern of
action, abuse of power is what they are calling it.
The interesting thing is, though, is in the report
theirself they mention bribery and extortion and all these
other things, but they just couldn't bring it up to actually,
you know, to get the elements, if you would, to be, you know,
crass, criminal about it, that they couldn't get the elements
to where they could explain it to the American people and what
they were doing, at least in my opinion personally.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
And I am going to be asking you several questions. So then
further down on page 2, the Democrats are claiming, which I
think is inaccurate, using the powers of his high office,
President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign
government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential
election.
Mr. Collins, was there any mention of the 2020 election in
the phone call?
Mr. Collins. No.
Mrs. Lesko. And, Mr. Collins, has there been any proof or
evidence or witness or anyone that can prove that Mr. Trump was
referring to the 2020 election?
Mr. Collins. No. And the only testimony that, you know,
that it was--it really was never to that. It was discussed on
aid and conditions on aid that they tried to put forth.
Mrs. Lesko. And then in--on the bottom of page 2 and to
page 3, it says that--it alleges--again, I think a lot of this
is a wishful thinking fairy tale going on here by my Democratic
colleagues--it said it would benefit his reelection, harm the
election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the
2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.
Again, has there been any proof of that, Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. No. And it did raise the question that has
never still been answered from earlier today, is now by running
for President you are free to do whatever you want to and not
be investigated overseas.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
And then the other thing that is repeatedly said in these
Articles of Impeachment is that Trump had corrupt purposes or
corrupt intent. Has there been any proof from their witnesses,
from anyone, that Trump's intent or purposes were corrupt?
Mr. Collins. Depending on how you are wording that
question, no. And I think the interesting issue is, is how they
would presume what his intentions were in those phone calls,
and those were presumptions or beliefs given to them by someone
else. But it goes back to the fact Mr. Sondland himself said it
was presumed, and then when talked to the President himself
said, I don't want anything, I just want him to do the job that
he ran for.
Mrs. Lesko. Exactly. And I have said before in Judiciary
Committee and elsewhere that there is no way that you can prove
what was on Trump's mind or that he had corrupt intent, because
there are other logical explanations, even though, Mr. Raskin,
earlier you said there was no other logical explanations.
Yes, indeed there is, because there was proof--or I should
say there is evidence that President Trump was concerned about
corruption in Ukraine. He also said in his phone call that he
was very concerned that other European countries weren't
pitching into Ukraine. He also talked about the video of Joe
Biden bragging about how he got a prosecutor fired by saying he
is going to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine.
So, to me, those are all logical explanations of why
President Trump would want to talk about that, not some
nefarious reason.
Mr. Collins. Well, and I think----
Mrs. Lesko. And so----
Mr. Collins. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Mrs. Lesko. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. I apologize.
Mrs. Lesko. Did you want to add something?
Mr. Collins. No. I thought you were through. I am sorry.
Mrs. Lesko. Okay. Thank you.
Also, let's see. Oh, this is a good one that this gets
under my skin, so I guess that is why you guys keep using it,
is on page 3 at the bottom, my Democratic colleagues in
Judiciary Committee and here in the impeachment, they keep on
saying that--it says, a discredited theory--we are talking
about Ukraine now--a discredited theory promoted by Russia
alleging that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016
election.
Mr. Collins, did Republicans or--I don't think President
Trump ever said that--ever say that Russia was never involved,
or did we just say that it is possible that both could have
influenced the 2016 election?
Mr. Collins. Well, we have never said--I mean, I have never
been--I believe Russia has been involved in the election, and
not only in ours, but others for years. That has never been a--
and it really is one of the disturbing parts. And I know we
have some disagreements between my Judiciary colleagues.
It was one of the main things to come out of the Mueller
report that was genuinely we both understood, but we never
dealt into that legislatively. We dealt with it in some of our
elections, and maybe touched on it, I will give that much to
some of the bills that we passed, but we didn't really dig into
it in depth.
But I think the issue was is Fiona Hill and others, you
know, had talked about the Ukrainians, and I will say that
individuals, you know, who did side with Clinton. And in Fiona
Hill's, her own statement was, the Ukraine--in her words were,
Ukraine bet on the wrong horse.
But, again, this goes to a whole, you know, discussion that
we have had on this, and at this point it has become very
clear. We have talked about this over and over and over. These
are the facts, you know, and we look at it. I think it is
interesting that you would say that I hear this a good bit that
these are undisputed facts.
They are disputed, inherently disputed, because if we
didn't have undisputed facts, we would all be agreeing here,
and that is not true. We don't agree on the basis for the fact.
We don't believe on the basis of the motivation of the call. We
don't believe that that is--and that is an inherent difference
in the two sides. That is why we are here.
The Chairman. Will the gentlelady yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Mrs. Lesko. Yes.
The Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the
record at this time a November 8 Politico article entitled,
quote, Ukraine didn't interfere in the 2016 campaign, Trump
officials testified.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Collins. And I appreciate the gentleman putting that in
the record, but, again, for my 14th time or I think today I
have not said Ukraine; I said Ukrainians, individual
Ukrainians. So there is a difference. There is a United States
and there is--you know, there are members of--there are
Americans who may do something, but it is not the American
Government. And I think this is the point that I have tried to
make, you know, during the rest of this--you know, during the
hearing today.
Mrs. Lesko. Yeah. And, in fact, there was--I think it was
op-eds guest columns written by Ukrainian officials that were
against President Trump, if my memory serves me correctly.
Not to belabor this too much, but I think it is important
to get this all on the record. On page 4 of the Articles of
Impeachment it claims that things were--he conditioned two
official acts on public announcements that he had requested.
Again, Mr. Collins, is there any proof of that?
Mr. Collins. No, there is not. I mean, we went through this
over and over. I mean--and, again, one of the questions that
came up, is it going to box him in, box him in so he had a
public stance on corruption. He just got elected, and like all
of us--we have members, you know, that--you want to make sure
that he is making the stance not only on what he ran on, but
also he is going to actually do it, because if you actually do
it, you know, say it, you can do it. This is, again, a concern
about the corruption issue that we brought up before.
Mrs. Lesko. And I would just, so I am not repeating myself,
there was--over and over again in here, it says openly and
corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake
investigations for his personal political benefit.
As you noted, Chairman McGovern, I serve on the Judiciary
Committee. I went over transcripts. I, you know, listened to as
much live testimony as I could. I was rejected from actually
going into the Mr. Schiff's room so that I could cross-examine
witnesses, which was very disheartening and I think very
unfair.
But, again, there is no proof. There is no proof of this.
It is like wishful thinking or something. It is like what you
want. And as Mr. Collins said, in these--the Nadler report, I
mean, it throws out all kinds of stuff. It talks about bribery,
which isn't even in the Articles of Impeachment here, so
obviously didn't have much proof on that. And you just keep
throwing out these things.
All right. Let's move to Article II, obstruction of
Congress. Mr. Collins, can you kind of explain what the normal
procedure or what has been done in the past when the
legislative branch wants something from the executive branch?
My understanding is they first pursue accommodations, like
they talk with each other to see what they can come up with,
and then if they run into a roadblock, then one of them goes to
court and they get a ruling.
Is that your understanding? And did the House Democrats
pursue any accommodations? And if there was a roadblock, did
they take the time to go to court or did they just move forward
with Articles of Impeachment instead?
Mr. Collins. Well, again, it is a whole year process, but
if you just want to talk about the last couple months, whenever
they would call a witness or the witness would not--you know,
wouldn't come, in a couple of cases, the witness actually went
to court to determine, you know, should they testify or not
given their position. And the House majority withdrew from the
suit. I mean, so they didn't want to continue that process in
court.
Historically--and look, if you take the majority's argument
on face value that there is a time issue here, that there is an
election issue that is a clear and present danger, as they have
actually said many times, then you would want to avoid
something that could drag this out further. I get that. But
this is not historically the way this is done. It is not
historically even investigations of impeachments have been
done. Those took long, you know, several years, the Nixon, the
Clinton. I mean, there were investigations for a long time into
these things as we go along.
Remember, though, we were tied up for the first half of the
year in Mueller, and then we got out of Mueller in July, and we
went basically straight into this, you know, right after it. So
this has been the situation we are in.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Mr. Collins, I am now going to turn to the what I call the
Nadler report, which was kind of dumped on us at, I think it
was midnight last night, it was after midnight the night
before, 658 pages, so I was frantically trying to read through
it while I was in different committees.
But, Mr. Collins, at the beginning of this it says--to me
this was laughable, I have to admit. It says: From start to
finish, the House conducted its inquiry with a commitment to
transparency, efficiency, and fairness. The minority was
present and able to participate at every stage.
Boy, Mr. Collins, do you think that is true?
Mr. Collins. Well, I think they are talking about what they
witnessed and not what they did. You know, I think this is--the
interesting part of this is getting it from our committee and
being a rubber stamp for what somebody else did. Granted, I am
not going to--and I have not denied that there was not
witnesses that testified in the Intelligence Committee, and
also that--and I never have not been one of the members who
said that we didn't have our time. We had, you know--our
members actually discussed, our counsels discussed that those
were actually testimonial times.
I did think it was really interesting that--and this I
think shows sort of the craziness of this. And I think it was
Mr. Perlmutter, but I am not sure, actually brought up Mr.
Castor--Mr. Castor is a staff member--being our witness. And
the only reason Mr. Castor was a witness is because Mr. Schiff
wouldn't testify, because Mr. Nunes should have been sitting in
that seat, and actually he was at the beginning of the hearing.
He was behind Mr. Castor.
So, I mean, I don't agree with it in any shape or form, but
the discussion that you just read is viewing another committee,
not our own, because once it got to us, as I found out today--
and I am hoping it was a misspeak, and I assume from my friend
it probably was--that only 17 members that were called was the
ones we could have actually called. I am going to assume that
was a misspeak.
But also, it is really interesting when you are dealing in
such magnitude as an impeachment, that you actually allow the
chairman of the committee or--on them by virtue of a majority
vote determine their relevance when no idea and not even a
question was determined could this provide exculpatory benefit
or could it provide anything that would go further in this
process, just simply say those witnesses are not relevant.
And really I have never had to get a letter from Chairman
Nadler about that because I could see the timing of--I have
also been around this game long enough. You have to notice
hearings. And the way we were noticing hearings, there was not
enough time to notice the next hearing if you had to put in
either a minority hearing day or you had to add witness day or
the President--you just didn't have the time.
Because when they started actually noticing hearings,
sometimes, like I said, it is just a simple fact you can look
that you are not going to get the witnesses. It didn't matter.
I could have put anybody on there, and it wouldn't have
mattered because they didn't have the time. They had already
scheduled the hearings, you know, out when they got it back.
So that is just a concern that just goes into the general
concern I have about where do we go in this body in this House
come January 1, because it is going to be long gone from us
tomorrow. But where are we going to be on January 1 if we all
have to get together, we all have to work together, we all have
to look forward, and then who sits in these seats after this
time happens? And that is just the general concern that a lot
of us have.
You will get what you--the majority will get what they
want, and that is fine. But is that in the long term a benefit
not only to what they are wanting to accomplish, but also to
the long-term benefit of this body, I would have to say no.
Mrs. Lesko. And thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to close with something that I
have said before in Judiciary Committee, and at the risk of
repeating it, it is, I guess, an oldie but a goody, in my
opinion. And so it is actually Chairman Nadler's own words, and
I want to repeat.
So during an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe on November
26, 2018, so not that long ago, Chairman Nadler outlined a
three-prong test that said would allow for a legitimate
impeachment proceeding. Now, and I quote: ``There are really
three questions, I think. First, has the President committed
impeachable offenses?''
I believe the answer is no and there has been no proof.
``Second, do these offenses rise to the gravity that is
worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment?''
Again, I would say no, because there has been no evidence
of any crime committed or that no evidence put forward, they
were not able to establish treason, bribery, or any high crimes
or misdemeanors.
``And three, because you don't want to tear the country
apart. You don't want half of the country to say to the other
half for the next 30 years, we won the election and you stole
it from us. You have to be able to think at the beginning of
the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of
offenses so grave that once you have laid out all the evidence,
a good fraction of the opposition voters will reluctantly admit
to themselves they had to do it. Otherwise, you have a partisan
impeachment, which will tear the country apart. If you meet
those three tests, then I think you do the impeachment.''
Well, in all three counts, I don't think Mr. Nadler has met
his test, and especially in the last one, even if you contest
the other ones, this has been a partisan impeachment. Not one
Republican voted to move forward with House Resolution 660 to
move forward with the inquiry. Not one Republican in Judiciary
Committee voted for the Articles of Impeachment. I suspect not
one Republican will vote to move this forward in Rules tonight.
And I suspect that not one Republican will vote for these
Articles of Impeachment on the floor of the United States House
of Representatives.
And, Mr. Chairman and members, this is tearing the country
apart. And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am kind of a stickler for details and accuracy in terms
of some of the things that have been said here, because these
hearings are going to be enshrined in our files and they will
be there forever. But I want to go back to something the
gentlewoman said about the votes on impeachment. I repeat,
nobody, Democrat or Republican, has had an opportunity to vote
on Articles of Impeachment. And contrary to what has been said,
voting to not table doesn't mean you get an automatic vote on
the impeachment.
I will give you an example. On November 6, 2007, the House
rejected a motion to table a Kucinich resolution to impeach
Vice President Cheney, and then moved to adopt a motion to
refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. And that is
what most of us had in mind.
So I can't say everybody, but I can say that it is just
inaccurate to say that people would have automatically voted
for impeachment or that voting not to table would mean a vote--
an automatic vote on impeachment. I just think it is important
for the record to be clear.
And having said that, it has nothing, absolutely nothing to
do with what we are talking about here today. And I appreciate
the fact that the gentlewoman is not fazed by the overwhelming
evidence about the President's behavior, but some of us
genuinely are, and many of our constituents are. And I think
that is what compels us to be here today.
And with that, I want to yield to the----
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Chairman, my name was invoked, and I would
like to say something.
The Chairman. All right. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Yes. So in reference to the squad, I am not
sure why Members and the President continue to pick on them the
way they do. Not that I need to defend any of them, because I
think they do a great job defending themselves, but I believe
that the tweet that caused that resolution from the President
of the United States actually states, ``Go back to the
countries where you came from,'' referring to American citizen
Members of Congress. If that is not despicable racism that will
continue to be tolerated by some Members of our Caucus, I don't
know what it is.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. And I appreciate that. I think the concern
many of us have is the bar has been so lowered that we are
justifying and defending the indefensible.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin, I saw you sitting up in your seat over a couple
questions, so I just wanted to ask if you would care to comment
on the question about whether the conduct alleged in the
articles is not just a constitutional crime but also a
statutory crime that could be criminally prosecuted?
Mr. Raskin. Well, yes, of course. And, you know, there are
a whole series of crimes in the middle of the Venn diagram
which are both high crimes and misdemeanors and also possibly
statutory crimes. But it has never been the understanding of
any Congress, whether it was the Congress--the House of
Representatives that impeached Bill Clinton or the House of
Representatives that brought articles against Richard Nixon or
back to Andrew Johnson that you need first to prove a statutory
offense before the House gets to move Articles of Impeachment.
And you can understand how nonsensical that is because it
is impossible to square with the other argument we have heard
so long from our colleagues, which is that the Department of
Justice may not under any circumstances prosecute, try, or
convict a President while he is in office.
Whatever the merits of that proposition--and I do think
they deserve greater scrutiny. Whatever the merits of them, how
can you say the President cannot be prosecuted under any
circumstances because he can be impeached? It is only Congress
can impeach him, and then when there is an impeachment
investigation, then it is being said you must first prove that
he has committed a crime.
I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. It is a game of
Three-card Monte. All of it essentially supports the
President's own claim that he is basically above the law. I
mean, he said that under the Constitution he can do whatever he
wants. And so I think that all of us should be aware for all
time of making arguments that put the President in a different
kind of box, a box that is above the Constitution and above the
people. That is going to be really dangerous for us.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I also wondered if you could address the
fact, it has struck me that with respect to this call to the
President of the Ukraine that occurred on July 25, that we
didn't hear any rationale, no witnesses testified that there
was any legitimate national security or any rationale for that
call until after the whistleblower blew the whistle on that
call. So there were no contemporaneous conversations. Could you
address that point?
Mr. Raskin. Well, Ms. Scanlon, you are absolutely right.
All of these are after-the-fact concoctions and
rationalizations that don't square with any of the evidence
that we have on the record. And when I say evidence, I am
talking about the evidence that has actually been submitted to
Congress through people's sworn testimony. I am not talking
about the kind of stuff that people just put on social media or
a tweet. I am talking about real evidence.
So what do we know? Well, if the President was concerned
about continuing corruption in Ukraine, why did he cut
anticorruption funding to Ukraine in half? If he was concerned
about fighting corruption in Ukraine, why did he recall the
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine who was the lead champion of the
anticorruption effort there? And why did he recall her under
circumstances where she was under attack by people who were
working with the retrograde corrupt forces in Ukraine as part
of this smear campaign? That is a really serious problem when
you think about it.
In any event, Congress passed the aid to go to the reformer
President, the anticorruption President, President Zelensky. We
attached stringent anticorruption criteria, which were
satisfied according to President Trump's own Department of
Defense, according to President Trump's own Department of
State.
The money was on its way, and then he held it up because
everyone knows why he held it up. He held it up because he
wanted these statements, these announcements from President
Zelensky that had to do with Joe Biden and trying to overthrow
our intelligence community's understanding that it was Russia
that interfered in our Presidential campaign in 2016, instead
replacing Ukraine.
Well, that, again, is nonsensical. But none of that appears
on the record anywhere. We asked lots of witnesses. They also
said, for example, oh, the President was concerned about burden
sharing. Actually, the European countries, the EU member
countries had given billions of dollars to Ukraine.
Mr. Hastings [presiding]. $12 billion.
Mr. Raskin. $12 billion to Ukraine. How insulting is that
for us to go around saying as a way to justify our President's
behavior, oh, they weren't doing enough for Ukraine? The EU
member countries put up $12 billion, and I am proud of the more
than billion dollars that we put in over the last few years,
but that is not as much as the EU member countries collectively
put in.
So we would rather pick a fight with our own democratic
allies and say they are not doing enough, even though
Ambassador Sondland himself testified, the President's own
Ambassador testified when we asked him, did the President ever
say to you, go to the EU member countries and tell them they
need to increase their funding? No, never happened. There is no
record of the President doing anything to try to get them to
put more money in.
It is an after-the-fact rationalization. It is a pretext.
And it is beneath the dignity of this body for us to keep
spreading this as some kind of plausible rationale for the
President's behavior. If you don't think it is a big deal for
the President of the United States to shake down foreign
governments and pressure them to get involved in our campaigns,
just tell us so, but don't make up all of these other fairy-
tale explanations for what was going on.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. And contrary to these after-the-fact
rationalizations, in fact, we have contemporaneous witnesses,
like Ambassador Sondland and others, who said, no, it was clear
that what was important to the President was getting this
personal political favor.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, the President himself said when asked
in public what would he have the Ukrainians do, he basically
said the same thing, just like his Chief of Staff admitted it,
this stuff is happening in plain sight. Let's stop playing
pretend. We have got a very heavy decision to make about what
to do with a President who enlists and recruits foreign
governments to get involved in our elections.
Is that what democracy is going to be like for the rest of
the 21st century? Is that what it is going to be like for our
children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren? We
have got to decide that.
You know, Dr. Fiona Hill in her testimony said Russia can't
beat us militarily. Russia can't beat us economically. But they
have got a strategy that involves the internet and intervention
in elections around the world. She said she thinks of Russia as
the world's largest Super-PAC, right. And are we going to be
allowing the President of the United States to be working with
Vladimir Putin's Super-PAC for the tyrants and the despots and
the people who are trying to interfere with the growth and the
spread of democracy around the world? I hope not.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Well, I wanted to spend a couple minutes
just looking at the real fundamental question here before us,
which is, should these Articles of Impeachment move forward.
And, Mr. Collins, I understand from the dissenting views from
the minority that you think it is too vague to charge with
abuse of power here. And I also understand that you accept that
abuse of power can form the basis for an impeachment, correct?
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. But as I understand it, the objection is that
you need more concrete facts. So I would like to just explore
for a minute what concrete facts could get you, if any, could
get you over that bar. So if a President were to send our
troops to war in exchange for a personal cash payment, that
would be impeachable, wouldn't it?
Mr. Collins. I think where we are going to go down a road
here of hypotheticals that, frankly, I am just not going to
play with. And, I mean, there will be things that you and I
could both----
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Then reclaiming my time.
Mr. Collins. That is fine.
Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Raskin, in fact, that was a hypothetical
that the Framers of the Constitution looked at, wasn't it?
Mr. Raskin. Would you mind repeating it? My daughter sent
me a text.
Ms. Scanlon. Sure. That the executive can't interfere with
that. When the Framers were looking at what kinds of offenses
should be impeachable, didn't they look to the example of an
executive who was being paid off by a foreign country?
Mr. Raskin. Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, first of all,
all four witnesses, the three called by the majority and
Professor Turley from GW, who was the minority witness, all of
them said that abuse of power is an impeachable offense. In
other words, we had unanimous agreement among our academic
scholars that abuse of power is an impeachable offense. There
is nothing vague or nebulous about it. Abuse of power meant
something to the Framers.
Now, we have got to wrestle with the facts. That is our
job. But they all said that. And when they canvassed all of the
records of the constitutional convention and the ratifying
conventions and the Federalist Papers--and everybody can
retrace their steps themselves, and I encourage you to do it
because we have got to use this episode as a civics lesson for
America.
And when you retrace it, you will find that there were
three kind of things on their mind: One was a President who
tries to corrupt our elections; two was a President who makes
deals with foreign powers in order to alter the course of our
political destiny, in other words, taking choice away from we
the people and giving it to foreign despots and spies and, you
know, people who would not have our best interest at heart
basically; and the third thing was the President elevating his
own personal, financial, and political interests over the
common good.
And, you know, I really want to emphasize that point
because the Framers wanted the President of the United States
to have complete and undivided loyalty to the American people
and not foreign powers and not his or her own financial plans
and certainly not elevating his or her own electoral ambitions
over the rule of law such that he or she would be willing to
corrupt elections just to get reelected.
And, you know, George Mason famously asked, you know, is
there anybody who really should be above justice, and
especially the person who himself has the more means of
injustice. And so we have more to fear from the President
because of his awesome powers. How can we say then that he
should be beyond the reach of the law?
Ms. Scanlon. Well, that is one of the things I found really
interesting as we have gone through this, listened to the
experts.
I did want to ask unanimous consent, and I am not sure
which letter Mr. Perlmutter introduced before, but we do have a
letter now that has 500 legal scholars who signed on saying
that there is grounds for impeachment in our current fact
situation.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. And over 700 historians who have signed a
separate letter.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. So I am not sure which one.
Voice. We will introduce them twice.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. But so I wanted to explore a little bit,
and I am sorry if Mr. Collins doesn't want to do this, perhaps
he would consider another question, because I am trying to
find, you know, do we have any common ground here with respect
to what might be impeachable.
So if the President ordered the government to withhold
payment from a contractor building his wall on the southern
border unless the contractor paid the President $1 million,
would that be an impeachable abuse of power?
Mr. Collins. With all due respect to the gentlelady who is
very talented in law, if we want to talk about the issue at
hand, I will be happy to. But I think we are way past the point
here at Rules Committee to determine--because we have already
issued the Articles of Impeachment. And I think--and in all due
respect, we are just getting it to the floor. And I will
discuss, as I have, the facts of this case, which I disagree
with and we both disagree, and I respect that greatly. I
don't--I am not going to just chase a what is impeachable
offense. I wish the majority had done that a long time ago. So,
you know, but I am not----
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Collins. Appreciate it. You can go back to it.
Ms. Scanlon. I think, you know, the minority's report says
that you don't think the abuse of power allegation here is
concrete enough, so I am trying to figure out what, if
anything, you might think is concrete. How about if the facts
showed that the President had ordered a government--ordered our
government to withhold foreign aid to Israel unless the Prime
Minister of Israel paid off our President, would that be
enough?
Mr. Collins. The gentlelady is very good, but I will also
continue to say, if the gentlelady--my report is specific to
this action, and the gentlelady is laying out a hypothetical
and laying out a theoretical, which is fine, but I just--with
all due respect, I am just not going to participate in it.
Ms. Scanlon. All right. Then would the gentleman agree that
if the President abused his office by--if we could agree that
the President had sought this favor for personal political
reasons rather than one of these after-the-fact explanations
that he has offered, would that be impeachable, if we agreed
upon the intent?
Mr. Collins. Look, again, this is sort of the last run
around this, if you alleged crimes, if you alleged actual
things than abuse of power, instead of saying an amorphous
abuse of power, which is what we list in our report, instead of
going to that--none of those specific charges were listed in
your abuse of power, but yet you have propagated your report
with all these other things.
There are ways that you can build it, and the gentlelady
knows my answer is, is can there be an abuse of power, yes, and
I have never not denied that. But what I am not going to do
tonight, because I do not find it convincing or relative to
this hearing of getting--or rule to put this on the floor
tomorrow is what our report actually says. Is there abuse of
power element? Yes, you can go back to the Nixon impeachment.
There were abuse of power. Those are things that you can look
at.
In this highlight here, and Mr. Raskin, I am sure, can
discuss this at length in his discussion, I will go back to
what I find here is not an abuse of power. I have said this
clearly on many occasions. And to engage in hypotheticals to
make this abuse of power look better, I am just not going to
do. And I appreciate the gentlelady.
Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Raskin, you had something?
Mr. Raskin. Yes. President Nixon was charged in the abuse
of power article with conducting a break-in of his political
opponent's campaign headquarters. President Trump is
essentially being charged with conducting a break-in of
American democracy in order to harm his political opponent. The
two crimes are quite analogous.
Now, one has the additional factors you just pointed out,
Ms. Scanlon, of dragging a foreign government into the
equation, which was something extra that the Framers feared
greatly. But both of these are abuses of power. The House of
Representatives didn't say, oh, you have got to demonstrate
that he has been convicted of burglary in the District of
Columbia or conspiracy to commit burglary before you take it up
as abuse of power, right.
And so it is true that our abuse of power claim has some
overlapping elements with bribery, as we have discussed
thoroughly, in the report with on its surface is fraud against
the people, perhaps extortion, and perhaps many other crimes.
And all of those things can be prosecuted under the
Constitution later, but that doesn't absolve us of our
constitutional responsibility to prevent high crimes and
misdemeanors against the American people in the meantime.
Mr. Collins. Would the gentlelady----
Ms. Scanlon. I guess one last try, Mr. Collins. Let me
just----
Mr. Collins. I have something I was going to say. So that
is fine.
Ms. Scanlon. I am just curious. I mean, we have the
precedent of President Nixon who was accused of abuse of power
because he ordered the FBI to investigate his political
opponents to get dirt on them. Do you think that was
impeachable?
Mr. Collins. Again, I will comment on the phone call of
this year, and also I will talk about what Mr. Turley said. And
what he said, he said, facts must be clear, convincing and
comprehensive. This record is contested. And the Democrat--and
the majority has not accepted exculpatory evidence here.
So I think when you look at it from our perspective, that
is what we laid out in our report, and it goes back to the fact
that I inherently will sit here with the facts in dispute, do
not believe it is the abuse of power based on this phone call--
--
Ms. Scanlon. And, Mr. Collins, I am just trying to find out
what, if anything, you would consider impeachable, because we
haven't seen that yet. I mean, you won't even concede what was
precedent from the Nixon situation, and here we have a
situation, I am asking if the facts were to show that the
President withheld foreign aid to another country in order to
get a personal political favor not for matters of national
security, would that be impeachable? And you don't seem able to
answer that question.
Mr. Collins. I seem very capable of answering that. I am
just not going to follow your path on what you are wanting me
to lead, because at the same point in time----
Ms. Scanlon. Well, I understand.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. I have got to--you and I both
have to vote on words on paper, and words on paper tomorrow is
this case. It is not the hypothetical of it, because I don't
believe you have made this case, and that is why I am pushing
back on it and will continue very politely to push back on
this. I am just not going to go down this road because you have
not made your case. Now, you can convince yourself and others
that you can----
Ms. Scanlon. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Collins----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. But that is my minority vote.
Ms. Scanlon [continuing]. The House is not the finder of
fact. The trial is for the Senate. Right here we are talking
about whether there is enough evidence to make out the case. I
believe that there is.
Mr. Collins. And I disagree. There is not.
Ms. Scanlon. Fine.
I guess one other thing I wanted to just push back on is
this idea that somehow this impeachment process is some kind of
radical left plot of some sort. I do have to thank our
colleagues on the other side for giving my children a good
laugh that their, you know, soccer mom carpool driving PTA
running the apple festival at the Methodist church mom is some
kind of radical.
But I did want to make clear for the record that the only
radical view I am embracing here is the idea that we the people
should be governed by a constitution that divides powers
between three coequal branches and establishes checks and
balances on the President.
And despite the rhetoric that somehow this is a completely
partisan exercise, my faith in these core constitutional
principles is I believe it is still a shared American value
that unites Democrats, Independents, Conservatives,
Libertarians. I think there is a growing consensus even among
Republicans who speak off the record or are not dependent on
the President for continuation in their job.
And I would just like to point to a couple examples. This
weekend, Tom Ridge, the former Republican governor of my home
State, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the first Homeland
Secretary of the United States, Member of Congress, Vietnam vet
said that he believed the President's conduct here was an abuse
of power to ask a foreign leader for a political favor.
Our former colleague, Mr. Dent, also from Pennsylvania,
said he has spoken with Republicans who are absolutely
disgusted and exhausted by the President's behavior.
Another former Republican colleague of ours, David Jolly,
said we have witnessed an impeachable moment.
Former Republican Congressman Reid Ribble of Wisconsin said
recently, clearly there was some type of quid pro quo. And when
asked if he believes the testimony presented warrants
impeachment, he said, I do.
Former South Carolina Republican Congressman Bob Inglis,
who served on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton
impeachment, said last month, without a doubt, if Barack Obama
had done the things revealed in the testimony in the current
inquiry, we Republicans would have impeached him.
And while I am hesitant, I don't want my colleagues to have
a stroke, Joe Scarborough, who is a former Republican
Congressman from Florida, said, every Republican knows that
Donald Trump was asking for dirt on Joe Biden in exchange for
releasing the military funds.
These are just a few of the folks who have come out here
and----
Mr. Hastings. Ms. Scanlon, would you yield just one moment
so I can add one?
Ms. Scanlon. Certainly.
Mr. Hastings. William Webster, the only person that has
been the FBI Director and CIA Director, said the same thing.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
Mr. Hastings. At age 95.
Ms. Scanlon. At age 95. Okay.
And with that, I would yield back.
Mr. Raskin, did you have anything further?
Mr. Raskin. I just want to say, nothing strikes me as more
conservative than wanting to conserve the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights and the political order that has been bequeathed
to us by the Framers and the Founders.
And the conservative tradition is a great tradition in
America, like the liberal tradition. And the heart of the word
``liberal'' is liberty. And liberals have every reason to stand
up for the Constitution now. Just like progressives, people who
look for progress, they have every reason to rally around the
Constitution.
We are not one political party. We are not one political
belief system or ideology. We are not one race or ethnicity.
But we have got one Constitution in our country. We have got to
cling really closely to our Constitution through this period.
And I know that doesn't mean we are all going to agree in
the end, but I think that if we are all constitutional patriots
we are going to be able to see our way through a very dark
moment in American history.
Mr. Collins. Could I comment on that? If not, you need to
give back, that is fine. I understand.
Ms. Scanlon. That is fine.
Mr. Collins. Okay. All of these that you just mentioned,
the Republicans you just mentioned--Tom Ridge is a great guy.
In fact, the last time I saw him was a few months ago when he
awarded Hakeem and I the Civility Award from Allegheny College.
He is a good guy. There is just one difference in all of these:
They don't wear pins currently in this Congress. They are not
voting on these articles.
And I would have to assume----
Ms. Scanlon. And I believe I mentioned that.
Mr. Collins. And I would have to assume in my position that
if they did, then we can always disagree. But they are not. And
I think the only thing is, is from a constitutional
perspective--and I appreciate it.
And again, I would say this. I am looking at facts. You are
looking at facts. We disagree. And I think at the end of the
day, that is the way it has got to be. And I didn't mean to
prolong that. And from that perspective, I think it is not--I
don't fight less for the Constitution than Mr. Raskin here. I
will never back up on that argument. He can fight and say he is
fighting for it. I am going to fight and say I am fighting for
it. And that is my case then to my voters and the American
people.
To frame this in, you know, anything else is just simply to
say, look, here are the facts, let's deal with the facts, and
let's vote on it tomorrow, and we will go from there.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. If I could add one thing to I think a fine
statement by Mr. Collins. But for those out there who don't
know Capitol Hill lingo, wearing a pin means--I thought I had--
there is my pin. You have got to wear a pin in order to get
into the buildings, because there are so many of us. There are
435, so they don't recognize. Some of us are famous here. Mr.
Collins is famous, they will let him in. But, you know, the
rest of us, we have to wear our pins in order to get in.
But I do want to push back against the idea that this
conversation is only for people wearing pins. And I think
America has got to think about this in a really profound way.
The Framers of the Constitution were trying to decide
whether impeachment should be located in the Supreme Court and
treated as a matter of law and legal induction or whether it
should be with Congress and the people's Representatives. And
they thought it was so important and so fundamental that it had
to be with the people.
Now, they know we are politicians. They know we have got
other stuff going on. We are fighting, you know, in our caucus
to lower prescription drug prices and we are fighting for the
Equality Act and we want to pass the universal criminal mental
background check. My colleagues have an agenda; we have got an
agenda. We have got to deal with all of that and also think
about impeachment. And what else do Representatives have to do?
We have got to interact with our constituents.
So when people say to me, oh, well, you know, you don't
want to talk to the public about it, you just want to go
decide--I don't think that is right. I think this is a national
dialogue that we are engaged in here. It is about the destiny,
the future of our whole country, our whole form of government.
So I am glad that you raised this. I am glad that I hear
from conservatives all the time on our side. I am sure that
there are some liberals who are on the other side. I think that
is the way that it should be. I think we have got to not be
bound just by what these labels, certainly these partisan
labels are all about.
You know, our greatest political leaders have understood
that we are in partisan competition in the election. Like
Thomas Jefferson, he was a real brawler when it came to
elections. He was savvy; he was smart. But when he got elected
in 1800 and he gave that inaugural speech, he said we were all
Republicans, we are all Federalists.
And George Washington reminded people always that the word
``party'' comes from the French word ``parti,'' a part. Our
party is just part of the whole.
When we get into office we have to try to look out for the
whole, not just for our part. Barack Obama said this is not the
red States of America or the blue states of America. This is
the United States of America.
So when we get elected, we have to try to think about the
good of everyone. And I know that everybody in this room comes
in that spirit and is trying to speak to the whole country and
not just to a narrow base.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. I can never match you
on the historical references, but I do want to close by noting
Franklin's response to a constituent when he and his fellow
Framers came out of Independence Hall in Philadelphia and they
were asked what kind of a government they had produced, and he
said, ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
So I think your emphasis on people needing to look at the
evidence themselves, actually read the transcript, you know,
come to this and engage with it as citizens.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morelle, you only have an hour and 45 minutes.
Mr. Morelle. And I will use it wisely. I promise.
Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
I want to thank both Mr. Raskin and Mr. Collins for
enduring a long day and for all of the hard work that you have
put in.
Just some observations and then a few questions, if I
might.
When America's Founders gathered for the Second
Constitutional Convention more than 230 years ago they laid
down not just laws and procedures, but the core principles and
values that would guide this young Nation.
At that time George Washington asked whether we are to have
a government of respectability under which life, liberty, and
prosperity are secured to us or whether we are to submit to
one, which may be the result of chance or the moment springing
perhaps by some aspiring demagogue who will not consult the
interests of his country so much as his own ambitious views.
The Founders did not take lightly the matter of
impeachment, as has been described. The journals of James
Madison, for instance, detail a solemn and thoughtful debate
among the Framers over the power to remove a President and the
conditions that would warrant such a decision. It was to be
reserved only for treason, bribery--and although those were
narrow, they added high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning not
just serious crimes against an individual, but it borrows from
14th century English law those crimes instead committed against
the State itself, or in this case, the very Nation a President
is sworn to protect.
And our Founders feared two things, and you touched upon
this earlier, Mr. Raskin, but two things above all others: the
overreach of executive branch powers by what they called the
chief magistrate, or the President, and the interference of
foreign powers--at the time Great Britain and France most came
to mind--but the interference of foreign powers in our domestic
affairs. And both, they feared, would undermine the foundations
of our democracy.
In fact, those fears had given rise to the very revolution
which the American colonies sought independence from in the
first place. And those fears have been realize, in my view, in
the actions of the President, exactly why impeachment exists at
all.
And last time this committee gathered on the subject of the
inquiry, I spoke of my hopes that the public phase of this
process would bring answers for the American people on those
allegations. And since that time, more than a month ago, we
have heard--and members of the Judiciary Committee, we thank
you, and members of the Intelligence Committee--because we have
heard publicly from many key witnesses that have illuminated
the alarming pattern of behavior the President has engaged in.
And these witnesses are not partisan actors but career
diplomats, experienced intelligence officers, and dedicated
public servants.
And I have to say parenthetically, one of the proudest
things for me was to observe those people testifying and
giving, as people dedicated to the country, patriots, who spoke
out not as partisans but as people who love this country.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman described the
unprecedented subversion of America's national interest in a
strong Ukraine, in favor of a wholly personal interest of
President Trump.
Dr. Hill testified to the back channels outside of our
usual national security and diplomatic policy that sought to
exchange a White House meeting for investigations pursued by
the President.
Ambassador Sondland, closely involved in the campaign to
pressure Ukraine at the behest of the President, declared in no
uncertain terms that this was a clear quid pro quo.
These and other brave Americans gave testimony, not as
partisan Democrats, but experts in their field, underscoring
that this process has not been one of politics but one of duty.
We have remained committed to a fair and open process, with the
only goals of discovering the truth and protecting the American
public--which is why I am so troubled that members of the Trump
administration have repeatedly refused to testify in hearings
and provide transparency, to make their argument to the public.
Despite this, we now have a clear picture of what occurred
between the President of the United States and the Government
of Ukraine.
Regrettably, sadly, I am convinced President Trump has
abused the powers of his public office, leveraged a foreign
government for political benefit, and obstructed necessary
congressional oversight of his conduct.
In the end it comes down, I think as you just mentioned,
Mr. Raskin, to one simple question posed by George Mason two
centuries ago: Shall any man be above justice? The answer, of
course, must unequivocally be no.
This is a profound moment in our Nation's history. It is
not just a responsibility but our somber obligation to protect
the Republic and uphold the very tenets it was founded upon,
and that is why we must uphold our constitutional duty to
justice by taking up these articles of impeachment.
And I hope those on both sides of the aisle can see that we
are at a crossroads, and the future of our country hinges on
decisions like the ones we make today. We cannot abdicate our
responsibility to our constituents, to our country, by choosing
to ignore the grave and, in my view, unlawful actions of the
President and threaten to unravel centuries of progress.
I am blessed, as many of us are, with three beautiful
grandchildren and a fourth on the way. And when I talk to them
about right and wrong, I want to be able to look them in the
eye and tell them I have always done my best to uphold what is
good, what is just, and what is fair.
And today that means casting a vote to hold accountable a
President, the highest office in the land, but a President who
has blatantly and egregiously abused his office, jeopardized
our national security, and put his own political favor ahead of
our national interests. And for the sake of our children, our
grandchildren, and all of us, I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
And with that, I would like to, if I may, just pose a few
questions. And part of it involves admittedly around the
unclassified transcripts of the phone call.
The argument being made by the President and his
administration in arguing that the call of July 25 was intended
to deal with widespread corruption in the Ukraine, that is, as
I understand, the argument. Is that correct, Mr. Raskin? Do you
see it the same way, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Forgive me. Whose argument?
Mr. Morelle. The argument by the President and the White
House is that their arguments and pushback was to combat
general corruption----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Morelle [continuing]. Although it is not in any way
described in the actual transcript. But that is the argument
now being articulated?
Mr. Raskin. It is impossible for me to take it seriously,
given that I have researched all of the circumstances and the
context. But I think that there is at least some halfhearted
effort to stick with that story.
Mr. Morelle. And what is interesting when you read the
transcript, Mr. Lutsenko was the prosecutor who I believe Trump
was referring to in the phone call when he said to President
Zelensky: I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he
was shut down and that is really unfair. A lot of people are
talking about that, the way they shut him down, a very good
prosecutor down, and you had some very bad people involved.
That is Mr. Lutsenko that he is referring to, isn't it?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, it is.
Mr. Collins. No, it is not. No, it is not. It is Shokin.
Mr. Morelle. Well, that is not----
Mr. Collins. It is Mr. Shokin.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, it is not entirely clear then.
Mr. Morelle. It is not clear then, because that is not who
is--it is not mentioned at all. But the--Mr. Lutsenko--Lutsenko
is generally viewed to be corrupt himself. And that was part of
what had happened with President Zelensky, was the removal of
Lutsenko and other prosecutors deemed to be corrupt by the
world community. Is that not correct?
Mr. Raskin. That is correct. But there was a history of
corruption going back, and Zelensky was elected as a reformer.
So yes.
Mr. Morelle. And, in fact, during the call, it does seem to
me that--I don't want to say that the two Presidents were
talking past one another. But on the one hand, President Trump
seemed to be arguing for retaining the prosecutors who had been
deemed by the world community generally to be corrupt and to be
pro-Russian, and yet President Zelensky is talking about
bringing in new and capable people.
Is that not how I read the transcript? Or should I not read
it that way?
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. That who is talking? That
Zelensky----
Mr. Morelle. They are talking past each other. The
President----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Morelle. President Trump is essentially arguing for the
status quo, the prosecutors who have been deemed to be--is
that----
Mr. Raskin. Well, the way--yes, the way I read it is that
President Zelensky is walking a tightrope.
Mr. Morelle. Correct.
Mr. Raskin. He is elected as a reformer, he has taken on
the corrupt forces in his society, but he is being presented
essentially with yet another corrupt scheme.
I mean, that is what is so heartbreaking about this, as
described to us by Dr. Fiona Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch.
This was a moment where Ukraine was trying to move forward from
all of the corruption, and as I think it was George Kent who
said, we try to teach the other countries of the world not to
engage in politically based prosecutions, not to have a
situation where someone gets into office and then decides to
prosecute their opponents or go after someone who is considered
a political threat to the President. And here we were, the most
powerful country in the world, which Ukraine was depending on,
and we were essentially imposing that scenario on them.
Mr. Morelle. Yeah. And I do note that despite suggestions
to the contrary, the only real references to this are Biden.
And, as it says at one point, the President says: I would like
you to find out what happened with this whole situation. They
say CrowdStrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people,
the server, they say Ukraine has it, a lot of things that went
on.
Unfortunately, it is somewhat unintelligible--intelligent--
intelligible to understand exactly what he is talking about.
But at no point is there a suggestion that he is talking
broadly about corruption.
I want to just focus, if I can, in just a few minutes, on
the role of Rudy Giuliani in all of this, obviously, well known
to New Yorkers. And I note that Ambassador Taylor, I think in
his testimony, said that he had suspicions before even taking
the job and said, in part, can anyone hope to succeed with the
Giuliani-Biden issue swirling?
What was your sense of what he meant by that in his
testimony?
Mr. Raskin. What--when you say----
Mr. Morelle. Sure. Ambassador Taylor said that he had
suspicions before taking this job. And he said: Can anyone hope
to succeed with the Giuliani-Biden issue swirling? Did he
expand further upon that, and can you share with us?
Mr. Raskin. Well, the general concern was that no one knew
quite in what capacity Rudy Giuliani was operating. I think
that that is a dilemma and a confusion that persists to this
very day. Sometimes he is acting as a businessman for himself;
sometimes he is acting as the President's personal lawyer;
sometimes he is acting as lawyers for other people; sometimes
he is acting on errands from foreign governments or he is doing
work with foreign governments.
There is an interesting analyst of corruption today named
Sarah Chayes, who has written a lot about corruption in
Afghanistan, where she lived, and she said you have got to
understand corruption today crosses different domains. So some
of it is in the government sector; some of it is in the private
corporate sector; some of it is in the underworld; and then you
get certain players who cross all of these boundaries and unify
them in different ways.
So I think that people understood that Rudy Giuliani had
the ear of the President, he seemed to be authorized or
empowered by the President to go on this domestic political
errand and try to make this happen, and he clearly had entree
into the highest levels of the U.S. Government and seemed to be
working with a lot of the government officials who were
involved there. That is why President Trump kept telling
people: Go talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy.
Mr. Morelle. So did you hear in committee any evidence or
uncover any evidence in the hearings that the White House
lacked confidence in the State Department, the diplomatic
corps, or the Department of Justice to communicate with Ukraine
the need for a broad attack against corruption generally?
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. I missed the beginning of your
question. Did we----
Mr. Morelle. Did you uncover any evidence or hear any
testimony that suggests the White House lacked confidence in
the State Department or the Department of Justice or the
diplomatic corps to communicate effectively with Ukraine the
President's desire to wipe out corruption generally?
Mr. Raskin. Well, there is an unstated premise there, which
is that the President had a general interest in fighting
corruption in Ukraine. And we saw little or no evidence of that
at all.
Remember, there had been hundreds of millions of dollars
that had flowed to Ukraine under the prior corrupt President
without a peep being mentioned about it. And it was during
Zelensky's rise where the President got interested. But that
didn't even have anything to do with Zelensky. It was because
Joe Biden was running for President, and he was looking for a
hook to go after Joe Biden. And this was the plan that he
decided on, and he was monomaniacal and single-minded about the
whole thing, and brought a lot of people together to try to
make that happen.
Mr. Morelle. Right. So if you take the President at his
word, which I am trying to give him every opportunity to make a
case, you would have to make--come to the conclusion that
somehow he lacked confidence in the Department of Justice or
the State Department or normal diplomatic channels. Otherwise,
why would he turn to Rudy Giuliani----
Mr. Raskin. Well, that is a great point.
Mr. Morelle [continuing]. Of all people, to conduct this
investigation?
Mr. Raskin. It is a great point.
Attorney General Barr himself released a statement saying
that President Trump had never contacted him with any evidence
about the Bidens that he wanted to be investigated and never
asked him to use the formal diplomatic channels to connect with
the law enforcement authorities in Ukraine.
You know, there are real crimes that are being committed by
Americans around the world. Americans are involved in
conspiracies with different people.
We actually have a way of working on this problem between
governments. The President, who would have better access to the
Department of Justice than anybody else in the country, never
contacted the Department of Justice about getting in touch with
Ukraine about any corruption that he knew about. He didn't turn
over any evidence. He didn't suggest any clues. None of it. He
just went directly to the President of Ukraine and told him
what he wanted him to do. He wanted him to make that
announcement about Joe Biden.
Mr. Morelle. Well, and I do note, going back to the
transcript, which is much talked about, where the President
talks about, which I referenced just a few moments ago, the
things that he was interested, which were narrowly about the
Bidens and the so-called server, it is actually Zelensky who
raises the name Giuliani first.
So it is clearly something that had been communicated and
well before July 25, because he says: I will personally tell
you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently, and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be
able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once when he comes
to Ukraine.
And clearly there is already a pathway, and clearly
Giuliani, who I don't think would be tapped to talk about
corruption generally when you had Attorney General Barr and you
have Secretary Pompeo and thousands of members of both the
State Department and the Department of Justice that can do it,
why they would choose Giuliani.
But that is clearly a cue for President Zelensky in this
conversation to raise the name of Giuliani. It is then the
President suggests that a lot of people are talking about that,
the way they shut your very good prosecutor down, and you had
some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly
respected man. He was the mayor of New York. I would like him
to call you. I will ask him to call you, along with the
Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what is happening; he is
a very capable guy. If you would speak to him, that would be
great. An indication that, again, these unusual channels of
operating, not through normal diplomatic channels.
And then, again, later on in the conversation, the
President: Well, she is going to go through some things--
speaking of Ambassador Yovanovitch--I will have Mr. Giuliani
give you a call, and I am also going to have Attorney General
Barr call, and we will get to the bottom of it.
And again, the President: Good. Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr
to call you. And so on it goes.
And it is just, in my mind, troubling that Mr. Giuliani
would be mentioned in the same breath repeatedly with the
Attorney General and clearly representing the President
personally. And as you point out, it is hard to tell what role
he is playing at any given moment. Is he the President's
personal attorney? Is he a representative of the United States?
Is he doing the President's political bidding for him? Or is he
doing something that relates to his own commercial and business
interests?
Yesterday Mr. Giuliani is reported to have said that
President Trump was given detailed information about how
Ambassador Yovanovitch was impeding investigations that could
benefit Mr. Trump, not that benefit the United States, but
benefit Mr. Trump.
Giuliani told the President and Secretary Pompeo that Ms.
Yovanovitch was blocking visas for Ukrainian prosecutors to
come to the United States to present evidence to him, Giuliani,
and Federal authorities that he claimed to be damaging to Vice
President Biden and to Ukrainians who distributed documents
that led to the resignation of President Trump's 2016 campaign
chair, Paul Manafort.
Is there any evidence at all that supports any of Mr.
Giuliani's claims against Ambassador Yovanovitch, either those
that were reported yesterday or reported earlier in this
investigation?
Mr. Raskin. Well, it is a great question. We asked that to
numerous of the witnesses, whether there was anything to this
conspiracy theory basically. And the answer we got was, no,
there is basically nothing to it, they are not aware that there
was an organized campaign by the Ukrainian Government to get
involved in our 2016 campaign.
My friend Mr. Collins rightfully pointed out that he and
other supporters of the President in this matter have said
there were Ukrainians who said things, and I think the
Ukrainian ambassador to the United States was one of the ones
who said things.
But you cannot put that in the same sentence or paragraph
or book with what Russia has been doing to elections around the
world. Our Department of Justice special counsel found a
sweeping and systematic campaign to subvert and undermine the
American election. They had hundreds of employees working
around this--working on this around the clock. They spent
millions of dollars or rubles doing it. They were trying to
inject poisoned racial and ethnic and religious propaganda into
our social media system.
And that is, you know, one thing, Mr. Morelle, that makes
me very sad, that our country is divided. I don't think it is
divided because we are trying to stand up for the rule of law
in the impeachment investigation, but the Russian attack on
American democracy did have a lot to do with it.
I mean, why did we have hundreds of neo-Nazis and clansmen
marching in broad daylight in Charlottesville? It is because
there was divisive racial propaganda, ethnic and religious
propaganda, pumped into American society.
So I think that it is almost a patriotic duty for us in
this very tough time to see that we try to bridge partisan and
ethnic and racial and sectional differences, regional, all of
those things. We cannot allow the enemies of democracy to
exacerbate preexisting fault lines in the country and open up
old gulfs within our country.
Mr. Morelle. Yeah, and I--just taking--just extending that
further. I note in the deposition from Dr. Hill, she is quoted
as saying: I went back to talk to Ambassador Bolton, and
Ambassador Bolton asked me to go over and report this to our
NSC counsel, to John Eisenberg. He told me, direct quote: You
go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal
Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and
tell them that you have heard and what I have said. So I went
over to talk to John Eisenberg about this. I told him exactly,
you know, what had transpired and that Ambassador Sondland had
basically indicated that there was an agreement with the chief
of staff that they would have a White House meeting or, you
know, a Presidential meeting if the Ukrainians start up these
investigations again. And the main thing that I was personally
concerned about, as I said to John, was that he did this in
front of the Ukrainians.
But I want to go back to and extend this to the result of
Mr. Giuliani's campaign that he had set in motion against
Ambassador Yovanovitch, which is also--this is part of the
deposition from Dr. Hill--why did the removal of Ambassador
Yovanovitch mark a turning point for you? And this is to your
point about throwing out conspiracies, et cetera. Because there
is no basis for her removal. The accusations against her had no
merit whatsoever. This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories
that, again, I have told you I believe firmly to be baseless,
an idea of an association between her and George Soros. I had
had accusations similar to this being made against me as well,
my entire first year of my tenure at National Security Council,
filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has
started again, frankly, as it has been announced that I have
been giving this deposition.
She goes on to say: The most obvious explanation to the
point seemed to be business dealings of individuals who wanted
to improve the investment positions inside of Ukraine itself
and also to deflect where on the findings of not just the
Mueller report on Russian interference but what has also been
confirmed by your own Senate report and what I know myself to
be true as a former intelligence analyst and someone who has
been working on Russia for more than 30 years. So the fact that
Ambassador Yovanovitch was removed as a result of this I have
to say was pretty dispiriting.
Who did you understand was responsible for her removal?
I understood this was the result of the campaign that Mr.
Giuliani had set in motion in conjunction with people who are
writing articles and you, you know, publications that I could
have expected better of.
She is then asked: Did you discuss Ambassador Yovanovitch
with Ambassador Bolton?
I did.
What was his reaction to this?
His reaction was pained, and he basically said--in fact, he
directly said Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to
blow everybody up. He made it clear that he didn't feel that
there was anything that he could personally do about this,
Ambassador Bolton.
I also note, in a meeting on July 2 in Toronto, Canada,
Ambassador Volker conveyed to President Zelensky the quid pro
quo described to Ambassador Sondland. In doing so, he
referenced the Giuliani factor and the need for the
announcement of the two political investigations.
And I note, parenthetically, Ambassador Sondland would
later testify Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the
President of the United States of America. We knew these
investigations were important to the President, and it wasn't
so much that the investigations be done, merely that there be
an announcement of the investigations so that it would aid the
President's election campaign.
Mr. Raskin. And, Mr. Morelle, if I might, that is an
excellent point. That might be the ultimate and most
devastating refutation of the idea that the President was
interested in ferreting out corruption. He didn't really care
about the investigation. He just wanted the announcement for
electoral purposes.
Mr. Morelle. And that is the testimony of his ambassador,
Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Volker had breakfast with Mr.
Giuliani and his associate, Lev Parnas, at the Trump Hotel in
December--I am sorry, here in Washington, the same Mr. Parnas,
I note, who is currently under indictment for campaign finance
violations.
During the conversation, according to Volker's testimony,
the ambassador stressed his belief that attacks being leveled
against the former Vice President related to Ukraine were false
and that Biden was a man of integrity.
He counseled Mr. Giuliani that the Ukrainian prosecutor
Lutsenko was promoting a self-serving narrative to preserve
himself in power. According to Ambassador Volker, Mr. Giuliani
agreed, but the promotion of Lutsenko's false accusations for
the benefit of President Trump did not cease.
Was any testimony presented that in any way contradicts
that testimony by Ambassador Volker?
Mr. Raskin. I don't believe so.
Mr. Morelle. You know, also testimony on August 2,
Zelensky's adviser, Mr. Yermak, met with Mr. Giuliani in
Madrid. They agreed Ukraine would issue a public statement--
again, I note that again it is the public statement part of
this, because that undermines the Biden candidacy. It does
nothing to address corruption, because the President, as it was
testified by Ambassador Sondland, Mr. Trump didn't seem to care
at all about whether the investigation was actually conducted,
simply that it was announced.
And Volker encouraged Giuliani to report to the boss the
results of his meetings with Mr. Yermak so that the White House
visit could be arranged, which was what was sought after, as we
know, by Ukraine.
I will stop there and relate to questions about Mr.
Giuliani, which to me is perhaps the most troubling piece of
this whole episode, is his role, without any portfolio from the
United States, simply acting as an actor on behalf of the
President, and clearly, even as late as today, continuing to
talk about how the investigations of Biden were to the benefit
of the President.
There is an old problem-solving principle called Occam's
razor. I am sure you, Mr. Raskin, are well aware of it. It says
when presented with competing hypotheses, one should select the
solution with the fewest assumptions.
And I just note, in order to believe those who support the
President's view, you would have to assume the following.
That despite the transcript of July 25 that specifically
mentions the Vice President and CrowdStrike and the server, we
must assume the President meant corruption generally, although
he doesn't refer to it in any way at all.
We must assume Secretary Pompeo, Attorney General Barr were
incompetent in pursuing Ukrainian corruption charges generally
and that the need was to reach out to Mr. Giuliani, although
there is no evidence of his failure of confidence in them.
We must assume Mr. Giuliani was in a special position to
pursue Ukrainian corruption generally, although there is no
evidence or rationale for that at all.
We must assume Ambassador Sondland and Acting Chief of
Staff Mulvaney were both in error when they confirmed a quid
pro quo.
We must assume Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Ambassadors
Taylor, Volker, Sondland, and Yovanovitch, as well as Mr.
Holmes and Dr. Hill, were all arrayed against the President,
despite not a modicum of evidence to that regard.
We must assume that the White House officials, like Donald
McGahn and John Bolton and others, somehow hold the key to the
President's innocence, if only they would testify. But, of
course, they refuse to testify.
The list goes on and on.
And I choose to follow the evidence which is laid out in
the reports of the House Intelligence Committee, the House
Judiciary Committee, and I continue to urge support of the rule
and the underlying Articles of Impeachment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. Dr. Shalala.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin, I want to follow up on the accusations against
Vice President Biden, which is at the heart of what we are
talking about.
Mr. Trump's smears against the Vice President are debunked
accusations made by a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor
Shokin. You heard me right, President Trump and his supporters
are so desperate to undermine Vice President Biden that they
actually colluded with a Ukrainian fraudster.
Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that there
was, quote, ``broad-based consensus,'' end quote, among the
United States, our European allies, and international financial
institutions that Mr. Shokin was, and I quote, ``a typical
Ukrainian prosecutor who lived a lifestyle far in excess of his
government salary, who never prosecuted anyone known for having
committed a crime, and who covered up crimes that were known to
have been committed.''
That is a nice way to say that everyone in the entire world
agreed that this Ukrainian prosecutor was a bad guy and
corrupt.
And so, Mr. Raskin, would it be accurate to say that the
allegations that Vice President Biden inappropriately pressured
Ukraine to remove Mr. Shokin are completely without merit?
Mr. Raskin. Totally without merit. Vice President Biden was
acting to articulate and implement U.S. foreign policy at that
moment, and that policy was to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor.
Ms. Shalala. Okay. So let me repeat. It was part of the
official policy of the United States and the rest of the world
to fight corruption in Ukraine, correct?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, it was.
Ms. Shalala. Did Vice President Biden ask Ukraine to help
him cheat in an election like President Trump?
Mr. Raskin. No, he did not.
Ms. Shalala. Okay. You know, we can obfuscate all we want,
but it won't change the simple fact that there is nothing
appropriate about President Trump's personal lawyer continuing
to run around Kyiv with corrupt former Ukrainians prosecutors
in search of dirt about Joe Biden.
I believe the American people know that Joe Biden is an
honorable man and they know it is wrong to seek foreign help to
cheat in an election. And the President's ongoing pressure on
Ukraine to investigate the former Vice President is powerful
evidence for why we have no choice but to move forward with
these articles of impeachment.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more distressing to me than
the fact that not one of our Republicans colleagues are willing
to confront the President over his misconduct. And I have
credibility on this. I confronted President Clinton on his
misconduct.
I have come to impeachment with deep sadness. The facts of
this case are painful and indisputable. We know that the
President abused his office, asking the leader of the Ukraine
to announce an investigation of his political rival. We know
that he illegally held up congressional appropriated aid to the
Ukraine. And we know that he conditioned the release of vital
military aid on Ukrainian President Zelensky's opening an
investigation based on a debunked conspiracy theory about his
political rival and foreign interference in the 2016 election.
We also know that the President has actively blocked
congressional attempts to determine the extent of his
misconduct by ordering executive branch officials to defy
subpoenas and withhold information.
These facts are uncontested, confirmed in public by career
public servants who have dedicated their lives to serving our
country. Further, they are uncontested by the President and
confirmed by his Chief of Staff.
We have now reached a point where despite the unprecedented
obstruction from the President, the evidence in this case is
powerful enough to delay this vote any further would be
irresponsible. Any delay would risk interference in the 2020
election and the permanent erosion of our system of checks and
balances.
This is not a matter of politics. I have never and will
never support the impeachment of a President over a policy
disagreement or a different ideology. This is a matter of
protecting the integrity of our democracy for the next
generation.
As we labor to pass on to future generations many of the
great hallmarks of our society, our financial might, our
brilliant scientific enterprises, the gifts of our great
natural resources, the strength of our military and the
diplomatic corps as a force for good, we must also work with
active stewardship and vigilance to pass on a vibrant and
functional democracy.
If we don't do our duty to protect the Constitution, the
republic that we hand to our children will be less vibrant,
less resilient, and less effective than the system we were so
fortunate to inherit.
The Framers of the Constitution knew that democracy is
fragile. They knew that its survival depends on the strength
and the courage we display in maintaining it.
But this fragility is also a strength. It requires our
public servants to put our Nation's interests ahead of our own,
to root out corruption, and to hold each other accountable to
high standards of democracy that democracy demands.
That is why we take an oath to defend the Constitution. If
protecting the Constitution were trivial, we wouldn't have to
take an oath. For over 200 years, honesty and vigilance and
courage have won out as generations of Americans have adhered
to their oath of office and met the standards of service that
our democracy necessitates.
Many died protecting our democracy. We cannot let this
legacy be damaged on our watch. President Trump has not treated
his oath of office with the seriousness it requires.
But ultimately this is not only a vote about one person;
this is a vote about his and our oath of office. This is a vote
to determine whether we will maintain our democracy or set our
Nation on a path to upend the values and standards the Framers
laid out for us.
I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much. And I thank all of our
colleagues for your patience. [Inaudible.] And if it is any
consolation to you, I have been in the number nine position and
in the number four position, and look at me now.
Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that
is the most inspiring thing I have heard and hopeful thing
today, which may be a reflection of what we are doing here.
I do want to say on coming in here 7, 8 hours ago, and I
have heard a few of my colleagues on both sides say this, it is
hard not to be, as a Member of this institution who has great
reverence for this institution--I have heard Mr. Collins say
many times that he believes and he is an institutionalist--not
to be sad. I think we are all sad and depressed from our
perspectives, because this is not the institution at its
optimum.
And I will say for the accusations about Never Trumpers, I
guess I will admit to being an almost Never Trumper. After he
was elected, I agreed with President Obama and Secretary
Clinton that we should give him a chance. And I remember
teasing some of my staff, well, maybe he is Chester Arthur,
where people thought when Arthur took over for Garfield, given
his reputation in New York--no offense--that he would not be
capable.
And he turned out to start the Civil Service system, which
we have benefited from in the last few months when we have seen
these really courageous public servants come forward.
Irrespective of your position, you can't help but admire these
folks.
And then having sat as a member of Oversight and sat in
hours of those depositions with Mr. Raskin and others,
Ambassador Taylor, Colonel Vindman, just remarkable in getting
the sense of that. And then having read the 300 pages and
listened to the Intelligence hearings and the Judiciary
hearings, I am just--my concern is that I have heard Members of
both parties say pattern, there is a pattern here. And I will
be honest, I am concerned about the pattern, but the
President's pattern.
One of the reasons why I was an early signer on to Steve
Cohen's Articles of Impeachment----
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. DeSaulnier. I am not offended.
But having signed on to Cohen's that never came to the
floor, as the chairman said, I approach supporting those as
referring it to the Judiciary Committee to have a hearing.
Because my own intuitive belief is this particular President,
whether Republican or Democrat, in my perception, rules don't
have the same effect on him as the majority of people.
And I think rules are important. And I think,
unfortunately, it is part of our business culture right now
that stretching the rules or breaking the rules and getting
away from them is part of what is wrong with this country.
So, Mr. Raskin and Mr. Collins, I have really one question.
In this pattern of things, we are all going to live with the
consequences of our votes. I hear my colleagues feel strongly
that they will vote against these most likely. Apparently Mr.
McConnell believes there will be a trial, that the President
will be acquitted.
So what I am afraid of is that the President will be
empowered to break more rules. I don't think he is capable of--
and I hope that is not true.
So what happens after this? And I want to read a quote from
James Madison in 51 when he talked about the balance of--and I
am an amateur, I hate to say this in front of a professional
like Mr. Raskin, but I wanted him to reply to this.
Because I don't take this as a hypothetical. Our actions
and the actions of the Senate are part of a pattern, and either
it will be corrected after this is all done, or, if I am right,
the President will go ahead and push the rules again. And I am
mindful that he made this phone call the day after the Mueller
report.
And this is in the context of foreign interference, that
the British, the French, the Germans twice, during World War I
and World War II, were very aggressive at affecting our
democracy. The Founders were perceptive and understanding in a
democracy in those days, which was an unusual thing, that
Madison said you had to bind the institutions, these three
institutions, the judiciary, the Presidency, and the Congress,
bind them so there is a check and balance, which is what 51 is
all about.
But put this in the context of what we know from the
Mueller report and what Mr. Raskin has talked about and the
technology that Mr. Putin and his agents have perfected. We, as
Americans, tend to think in American exceptionalism, maybe
sometimes that the Russians aren't very sophisticated. They are
very, very sophisticated at propaganda that, as Mr. Raskin
said, its ultimate goal is to disrupt democracy and have us
basically destroy ourselves.
Because Mr. Putin believes the worst thing that happened to
Russia was the implosion of the Soviet Union and glasnost. And
he sees the mass of men and women as incapable of governing
themselves, which to us sitting here, I think we all believe,
whether we are conservative or liberal, that is the opposite of
what we live for, what people have sacrificed their lives for.
So Mr. Putin wants us to be fighting each other. And they
have used social media, and somebody from the Bay Area who
deals with these companies and is frustrated with them to
govern themselves, they have used it in a way, as the Mueller
report says, to support this President, according to the
report. And I thought that was damning enough to go ahead with
impeachment, but we didn't, and the obstruction was clear to
me, but we didn't.
So in the context of that report, and sitting here a few
months before our Democratic primary, which will be super
primary in March, and less than a year away from an election,
knowing that they are going to do these things, in the context
of what we are going to do is not a hypothetical. It is part of
a continuing effort by foreign actors who do not believe in
this institution or in democracy or average people governing
themselves.
What do we anticipate the consequences after we vote
tomorrow and after the Senate takes what I think is a mistake
in their action?
So let me just read what Madison said. And all of the
Founders were amazing writers, because people wrote and read
well then.
So he said in 51, he said: ``The interests of the man must
be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It
may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be
necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is
government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature?
``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
angels were to govern, neither external or internal controls on
government would be necessary. In framing a government which is
to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies
in this: You must first enable a government to control the
governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.''
So our failure to control ourself as a Congress, for the
difficulties of the time, make me think that the consequences
of our decisions and the inability to hold this President
accountable and constrain him properly under the Constitution
is not a hypothetical. It is something we are going to have to
deal with in the days to come and before the next election
while foreign actors and domestic actors try to disrupt our
democracy.
So, Mr. Raskin, Professor Raskin, what do we do after this
decision? How do we constrain the administration and properly
balance that with the needs of this institution?
Mr. Raskin. You ask that at 6:50 p.m. That is a big
question, Mr. DeSaulnier. But I will try my hardest. Let's
see----
Mr. Collins. Thirty seconds left.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Collins, if you want to jump in, I
don't think it is a hypothetical. I would love to hear your
opinion.
Mr. Raskin. I am going to give it my best shot.
First, what are the consequences in terms of the 2020
election? That is something--now, let me say this. I don't want
to assume the inevitability of your premise that we are not
actually going to deal with this problem.
The House of Representatives has been immersed in this. We
know a lot more about the facts. We know a lot more about the
details. And now it is going over to the Senate. And I want to
believe that 100 Senators are going to adhere to their
constitutional oath, reflect on what that means, and then be
open-minded, critical-thinking jurors in the process. Okay.
But what would happen if we don't deal with it, if we all
just go home and say, ``Hey, you know, authoritarianism is on
the march all over the world, democracy is on the run, there is
only so much we can do at this point,'' and we don't deal with
it?
Well, I think President Zelensky has got to be watching.
Ukraine has got to be watching. From their perspective, they
are in the middle of this. I mean, all of us are sort of acting
like, well, President Trump got caught, so of course they are
not going to go through with it. But if we let him go, why
won't they go through with it? Why won't he have to go through
with it? Why won't he have to make his announcement about the
Bidens and then, for his own domestic political consumption, he
will have to go through with an investigation?
We have just set a new precedent there, a new standard,
that the President can go and try to recruit foreign
governments to get in our campaign by threatening, announcing,
and engaging in criminal investigations of their political
opponents. That is banana republic stuff, right? That is tin
pot dictator stuff. But we have set that as a standard. So that
terrifies me.
Here is another pattern that we have got to deal with.
Robert Mueller came to testify before the House Judiciary
Committee on July the 24th. And as the President mentioned on
the phone call on July 25, he thought basically he had gotten
away with everything, right? Mueller found a sweeping and
systematic campaign by Russia, he found more than a hundred
contacts with the Trump campaign.
But Attorney General Barr had taken the report for 3-1/2
weeks, and he had said to America, there is nothing in there,
nothing to be seen here, prompting not one but two letters of
protest from Special Counsel Mueller, and yet it was too late
for democracy to catch up, to have a serious, rigorous analysis
of what was in the report.
And on the very next day, President Trump has the phone
call with President Zelensky and says but do us a favor
though--kind of putting the icing on the cake of this whole
effort to drag them in to our domestic politics.
That is a pattern, because if it can be done to one
struggling democracy, it can be done to another struggling
democracy. And if we can allow one tyrannical authoritarian
despot like Vladimir Putin to come on in, the water is warm,
well, why not others? Why not Turkey? Why not the President's
friends in Saudi Arabia?
He already basically whitewashed their assassination,
murder, and dismemberment of a Washington Post journalist. So
what big deal would it be for them to say, ``Come on in and get
involved in our election campaign''? So that is a serious
problem.
Now, what about--you say the pattern about checks and
balances. It is interesting, because the phrase checks and
balances appears in the Federalist Papers not to refer to the
three branches. It is not legislative, executive, judicial. It
refers to the House and the Senate. And those are the checks
and balances we should be thinking about right now, because the
people's body will speak this week. And if it goes the way I
hope we will go, we will impeach this President for abuse of
power, we will impeach this President for obstruction of the
Congress.
But we are placing our faith, as the Constitution obligates
us to, in the Senate to do their job. But what that also means
is place our faith in the people to make the Senate do their
job, because we are politicians, and we know that we don't
respond exclusively and entirely to the will of the
constituents, but we do a lot. That is an important ingredient
in representative democracy.
But look, in Congress itself we cannot be afraid of our own
power. One thing I disagreed with, I think I heard one of my
majority colleagues today say, is we have got three coequal
branches. And I have been trying to correct this from the very
beginning.
Our Framers, the Founders of America, overthrew a king. And
the first sentence of the Constitution, in the preamble, they
stated what America was about. We, the people, in order to form
a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and preserve to ourselves and our posterity
the blessings of liberty, do hereby ordain and establish the
Constitution of the United States of America.
The very next sentence starts, Article I, all legislative
power is vested in the Congress of the United States, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. You see what just
happened there? The sovereign political power of the people of
America flowed from the act of Constitution-making into the
Congress of the United States.
And then you get 37 paragraphs laying out all of the powers
of Congress, the power of appropriation and spending, the power
to regulate commerce domestically and internationally, the
power to declare war, the power over the seat of government,
and so on and on. Even the power in Article I, section 8,
clause 18, to have all of the other powers necessary to the
enforcement and execution of the foregoing powers.
And then in Article II you get to the President. And
remember, in the Articles of Confederation, in the Articles of
Association, we didn't even have a President, right? So they
wanted to create somebody who would show executive energy, to
execute our laws. But that was the job, to take care that the
laws are faithfully executed and to be the Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy in times of actual insurrection, right?
That is the core of what the job is.
And section 4 of Article II is all about impeachment, in
order to make sure a President doesn't become a king.
Think about this. Why do we have the power to impeach the
President, and he doesn't have the power to impeach us? And it
was a great Republican President, Gerald Ford, who answered it.
Here the people rule. Here the people and their Representatives
rule.
So if the President were to be impeached, he doesn't go to
jail for 1 day because of that. That is criminal prosecution;
it has got nothing to do with us. But what we are doing is
protecting the country and the Constitution.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Collins, you want 30 seconds?
Mr. Collins. I think my friend just summed up the entire
thing for me. He did. We went on a whirlwind trip. He is a
wonderful teacher. I would have loved to have had him in class.
And he went all over the world at a 30,000-foot level. You
watch him along in his oratorical skim down and hits the common
man and come up and touch the wings of the gods.
The problem is he never addressed the issue we are dealing
with. And I think that is the very heart of the problem we have
right now. It is one think to speak in a rash of rhetorical
flourishes today, and we have, and we are getting to an end,
thank you, Lord, of dealing with this.
But the bottom line is, is the question I believe, yes,
where do we go from here? It is like, you know, the simple man
who once needed to get his--you know, I used to watch--some of
this may come as strange to my colleagues on the majority side,
I really enjoyed ``The West Wing.'' I watched it, my family has
watched it over and over and over again.
And that answer right there, which I respect deeply, it is
amazing. We differ on so many things, but actually Jamie and I
just get along very well on many other things. He is wrong, I
am right, but we will deal with that. No, I am kidding. But we
do it.
But there was an episode in which President Bartlet was in
one of his rhetorical flourishes, and Toby asked him about a
friend who had called about getting something fixed at the VA.
And he went into this long story, if you remember this scene,
he went into this long story about the red tape and that
veterans had to come to D.C. because they were tangled with red
tape. That is where red tape comes from.
And Charlie, who is the body man for the President, looked
at him, he said: But, Mr. President, all he wanted to know is
how to get his wheelchair fixed.
And I think that is what we are seeing a lot of here today.
It is future. What is going on? What is going to happen? What
happens tomorrow?
What is going to happen tomorrow is you are going to vote
the articles of impeachment. Probably after that it is going to
go to the Senate, which has been a predetermined observation
from day one, not because of anything else, it is not going
anywhere. And that is fine. That is the path we chose.
But where do we go from here? This is my question. Because
I think when you look at this, to simply say--and to come at it
from the facts, which is the only way the majority can come at
this, is that the President did something wrong.
At which point has he ever done anything right for this
majority? He never has. And I think when you look at the
discussion--and I understand your discussion, Mr. Perlmutter, I
get it--but when you look at it from the fact that from the
moment after the election there was discussion of impeachment,
from minutes after he was sworn in The Washington Post said now
the impeachment begins, when we begin to look at this process
all the way through, my only question is, is not: When do we do
this--how or where do we go from here? It is just when? It is
just when do we do it again? Because it is not matter of
disfacts; and it is like I said earlier, it is not engaging in
hypotheticals. We go back to the simple basic facts that have
happened in this case, four basic truths. Zelensky and
President Trump said no pressure. The transcript shows no
conditionality. The Ukrainians were not aware of the aid was
being withheld when they spoke; and Ukraine didn't open an
investigation, still received aid, got a meeting with the
President.
There were five meetings, three of which took place from
the call to until the time the Ukrainians found out about the
aid being withheld. Two of those meetings were held after they
found out about the aid being withheld. None of these ranging
from President Trump to Senators Johnson and Murphy, Vice
President Pence, none of these actually discussed aid being
linked to the money, none.
So we start off, and we get rhetorical flourishes here at
the end which is fine. I understand it. If I had to sell this,
I would have to be rhetorically and flourish as well, because
the Constitution is at stake here. It is the determination: Is
this Congress going to be a body in which we impeach because of
partisan ideas, which is also what the Founders discussed.
You have the majority. We had the majority for a while,
while I was here, for 6 years. It is a massive responsibility,
and at times, we did it well and at times, we did not do it
well. And I believe that is why probably last November we got
an election that gave you the majority and gave you the gavel.
But remember just because you can don't mean you should;
and sometimes, when the facts, especially when you have to go
at them from the perspective of the way this process has went,
as I said earlier today, I will fight process and I will fight
facts, and I will win on both. Because when I take this case
from here at this table in just a few minutes when we leave,
and I will take it to the floor tomorrow, and then I will take
it to the American people, just as this President will, and
just as though who fought.
And when we understand what actually happened, when what is
actually charged, not what was assumed and not was put deep
into a report, but what was actually ended up, then I simply
see nothing that helps us down the line. But I do see two
things that bother me, and this will finish my statement to
you.
I see a process that has been trashed in the rules, and
processes of the committee and of the whole, and I see a
process of impeachment that has been lowered to where you don't
have to even jump anymore, and that is my concern. I know Mr.
Raskin doesn't share it, but that--you ask. That is my concern.
Where do we go from here? In some ways looking at this, God
help us.
I yield back.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Let the record know that was more than 30
seconds. Let me just finish with from my perspective the
specificity and Mr. Cole and I were talking about people
reading the summary of the phone call and different people
reading it and having different realities when they read it
but, as all of us can relate to, a candidate for Federal
office, the law says cannot, quote, ``knowingly solicit,
accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or
donation,'' and that contribution or donation, is defined as
anything of value.
When I read that summary, he is clearly asking for
something of value, an investigation that would cost hundreds
and thousands of dollars against his primary opponent, the day
after the Mueller report, a day before he went out, I am told,
and said that the Second Amendment gave him the right to do
anything he wanted.
So with that, just maybe briefly, Mr. Raskin, the President
withheld his funds. Mr. Collins says he released them, but my
recollection is, and the testimony, he released them because
people in the Congress and the press were starting to say you
need to release these.
So, it was the pressure brought to him to release it that
got him to release it. And in that time, Ukraine was exposed to
his patron, Mr. Putin. So was he faithfully executing the
duties of his office when he did that?
Mr. Raskin. Well, he got caught red-handed; and I don't see
any ambiguity in the historical record about that. We announced
our investigation on the 9th of September, and then it was on
the 11th that the money was finally released.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank you.
I have good news for both of you. I think everybody has
asked their questions. There is nobody left here on this
committee.
I do want to close with this. First, I want to thank both
our witnesses for enduring this very long hearing. I want to
thank the members of the Rules Committee, Democrats and
Republicans, because I think we have very sharp disagreements
on this, but I think this hearing was conducted with civility.
I want to thank Mr. Cole and his team for helping with that.
I mean, I like this hearing, quite frankly, better than the
one that was in your committee. But, I think people feel very
strongly about these issues and I want to thank everybody for
their cooperation here today.
And so you are dismissed.
And there are no other witnesses here. So that will end the
hearing portion of this----
Dr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, Mr.----
Dr. Burgess. May I be recognized for a----
The Chairman. You may.
Dr. Burgess [continuing]. Unanimous consent request.
The Chairman. We have--withdraw what I just said, yes.
Dr. Burgess. I have the four letters that I sent
individually, asking to review the documents, two letters that
were group projects; and I would like to add those for the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Burgess. And then also, I think it is significant. When
President Poroshenko came and talked to a joint session of
Congress, many remember it, 2014.
The Chairman. The gentleman deserves to be heard.
Dr. Burgess. In his address, he referenced a lot of things,
how Ukraine had voluntarily withdrawn from being a nuclear
power with the promise that they would always be protected; and
then maybe they weren't.
But he also, this was the speech in which he also said that
they needed more military equipment, both lethal and nonlethal.
Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but you cannot
win a war with blankets.
Again, this was from 2014. Donald Trump was not President.
I just thought it was important to put this in this part of the
record as we have heard----
The Chairman. Without objection.
Dr. Burgess [continuing]. About how national security was
threatened by President Trump's actions.
The Chairman. The hearing portion of H. Res 755 has come to
a close, and we will recess, subject to the call of the chair.
And we will work with you about an appropriate time to
reconvene to meet some of the obligations that your members
have and our members have tonight. We meet tonight.
With that, the hearing is closed.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Okay. The Rules Committee will come to order.
At this time, the chair will entertain a motion from the
distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move the committee grant House Resolution 755, impeaching
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high
crimes and misdemeanors, a closed rule.
The rule provides that immediately upon adoption of this
resolution, without intervention of any point of order, the
House shall proceed to the consideration of House Resolution
755. The rule provides 6 hours of debate on the resolution,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their
respective designees.
The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, recommended by Congress on the--I am sorry--
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, now printed in
the resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The rule provides that the question of adoption of the
resolution as amended shall be divided between the two
articles.
The rule provides that during consideration of House
Resolution 755, only the persons shall be admitted to the hall
of the House, or rooms leading thereto, only the following
persons. A, Members of Congress; B, the delegates and the
resident commissioner; C, the President and Vice President of
the United States; D, other persons as designated by the
Speaker.
Section 3 provides, after adoption of House Resolution 755,
for consideration of a resolution appointing and authorizing
managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump,
President of the United States, if offered by the chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary or his designee.
The rule provides 10 minutes of debate on the resolution
specified in Section 3 equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration
of the resolution specified in Section 3.
The rule provides that no other resolution incidental to
impeachment relating to House Resolution 755 shall be
privileged during the remainder of the 116th Congress.
Finally, the rule provides that the chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary may insert in the Congressional Record such
material as he may deem explanatory of House Resolution 755,
and the resolution specified in Section 3 not later than the
date that is 5 legislative days after the adoption of each
respective resolution.
I yield back.
The Chairman. You heard the motion from the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania.
Is there any amendment or discussion?
Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee
provide 12 hours of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, because of the Democratic majority's hasty
timeframe to impeach the President, it is imperative that the
House have ample time to debate H.R. 755. We should strive to
come as close as possible to the allotted time for debate in
the Clinton impeachment. Members should have sufficient time to
explain to the American people, on the House floor, their
position on these impeachment amendments. Providing 12 hours of
general debate will only allow each Member of this Congress a
mere 1 minute and 40 seconds to debate H.R. 755. I know there
is a lot of demand on both sides that members have an
opportunity to state their positions publicly. So we would ask
for the twelve-hour.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We have provided 6
hours of debate, plus an hour of debate time in the rule. That
is 7 hours total. It seems like a reasonable amount of time. We
are dealing with fewer Articles of Impeachment with President
Trump than we were with President Clinton, and I think it is a
fair amount of time, and I respect the gentleman, but I would
urge a no vote on his amendment.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yeah, are there any other people requesting
time?
Mr. Burgess.
Dr. Burgess. Yeah, I would just speak in favor of Mr.
Cole's amendment. Not every Member of Congress has the
privilege that we do of serving on the Committee on Rules. We
have enjoyed unlimited time. You have been very kind with the
time today. So we have all had ample time to talk. I think
every Member of Congress needs to be able to take time to
explain to their constituents and to the country this is not
a--this is not a trivial matter that we are taking up. This is
a matter of great importance for the future of our country, and
we have all talked about our allegiance to the Constitution. We
should provide members an opportunity to explain themselves.
And I would just say to--I think Mr. Cole's amendment is
well-reasoned, well-considered, and I would urge us to take
this up, and Mr. Cole has provided you an opportunity and I
think you should take it.
The Chairman. Yeah, well, I appreciate it. I think the 7
hours of debate will extend probably to more like 12 hours when
it is all said and done. So----
Mr. Cole. May I just note for the record, Mr. Chairman? It
is not often we get a text in supporting any amendment I make
as well-reasoned and open. So I just want to thank my friend.
The Chairman. The vote is on the Cole amendment. All those
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the
chair the noes have it.
Mr. Cole. We would request a roll call.
The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings, no.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
Ms. Shalala?
Ms. Shalala. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
Mr. DeSaulnier?
Mr. DeSaulnier. No.
The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier, no.
Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
Mr. Burgess?
Dr. Burgess. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The clerk will report the total.
The Clerk. Four yeas, nine nays.
The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to. Further
amendments? Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. I have an amendment of the rule to amend
Section 1 that waives all points of order in the rest--in the--
against provisions of the resolution, except for those in
violation of clause 2(g)(6)(b) of House Rule 11.
As currently constructed, the rule waives all points of
order. Clause 2(g)(6)(b) of House Rule 11 is that one that we
spent so much time talking about today, which is minority
rights for a hearing.
On December 4th, Mr. Chairman, as you know, minority
members of the House Judiciary Committee did exercise their
rights under that section, and asked for a day of hearings. But
as of today, that hearing has not been scheduled. You responded
to Mr. Cole's concerns, all of our concerns on that issue, and
as I read during our hearing today, concluded that, because Mr.
Nadler has appropriately said he will work with the minority to
schedule that hearing after our vote on impeachment, that you
believe that section had been satisfied.
You stated that you--that the intent of this rule was to
provide folks with a voice. I don't think any member on this
committee would suggest that allowing hearings, after bills
have been passed, would allow for that voice. It could well be
that the House Parliamentarian and the Speaker tomorrow will
agree with you that having consulted with Chairman Nadler and
agreed to hold hearings after the fact, that that does satisfy
this section of the House rules. I think that would deem this
section meaningless if that is true.
But by allowing and exposing this point of order tomorrow,
we will at least make clear to the American people only one of
two things is true: either the House of Representatives has a
process, and on the day we accuse President Trump of breaking
the rules, we choose to follow our own; or, we will choose to
waive those rules and leave the impression that so many of my
colleagues have talked about today that the rules don't apply
to everyone and do not exist to serve everyone.
I know that is not the chairman's intention, again, as his
letter makes so very, very clear. I would just ask my
colleagues, because this has been a source of great debate and
disagreement, that we expose this point of order; and if it
turns out, as the chairman believes it will, that this
requirement has been satisfied, then no harm, no foul. But if
it turns out that this requirement has not been satisfied, we
would do the American people a great service by satisfying it
and then moving--and then moving forward.
I thank my chairman.
The Chairman. Any other discussion on the Woodall
amendment?
Mr. Woodall. If I could just add one----
The Chairman. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Woodall. To read that section makes it clear that there
is no ambiguity in this request. If the minority asks, the
request must be granted. It is not up to the discretion of the
chair. That absence of discretion was intentional as we crafted
this section on minority rights, and I just put that out there
for my colleagues because, again, one day we will all be in
different places and the precedent we set today will matter.
I thank the chairman.
The Chairman. I know, and we have been in your seat as
well, but there is nowhere in that rule did it say when the
chairman must schedule that hearing and the bottom line--we
have had this discussion before. I don't think this is subject
to a point of order. And as we all know, it is standard for any
measure brought to the floor under a rule to be provided with
protections against points of order.
Last Congress alone, 86 blanket waivers were provided by
the Republican majority. We have not been advised that any
points of order lie against the resolution. So the waiver is
simply out of an abundance of caution in keeping with modern
rules practices. Even though no points of order lie against the
resolution, dilatory points of order could be brought up that
would have to be argued against and ruled on, needlessly
delaying the floor. Again, that is why prophylactic waivers are
included in every single rule we report out of here under
Republicans and Democrats.
So I just disagree with you on how you interpret the
minority day rule. I responded to you as to my opinions but,
look, we need to make sure this resolution moves forward.
With that----
Mrs. Lesko. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Arizona.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Woodall's amendment.
I, you know, I think the American public would think it is
really ridiculous to grant a minority hearing date after we
vote on the Articles of Impeachment. I mean, any person with
any common sense knows that that is really, in my opinion,
outrageous. And so, you know, if you go forward with this, as I
assume you are, I--you know, I think we are going to make hay
out of it for sure. I mean, just to show----
The Chairman. You can make hay out of whatever you want.
As I said before, the whole point of this resolution was to
ensure the minority had a right to a witness during committee
procedures. That has been granted in the Judiciary Committee.
And this is to protect against chairmen, or chairwomen who
basically allow no minority witnesses.
So I am perfectly comfortable with my response. But I will
also say we received a letter from 70 members of the Republican
party, including two members of the Rules Committee, saying
that they are going to use every dilatory tactic within their
means to try to delay and derail this process. You know, I do
not want this to turn into a circus. This is a serious matter,
and it will be considered in an orderly and respectful way, and
I think that is--so we just disagree on this.
Yeah, Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I can just be heard on one further point, I may have not
explained my motion articulately. I agree with you in the
nature of the Rules Committee, our standard practice of waiving
all points of order, the requirement that the majority be able
to conduct its business without dilatory tactics. My motion is
that we keep that section that waives all points of order, with
the one exception of this minority witness. If I may read from
the--from the House Practice manual:
Whenever a hearing is called by a committee on a measure or
matter, minority members on the committee may have a right to
call witnesses of their own choosing.
That has not happened here. That has not happened here. As
has been said so often today, those facts are undisputed,
undisputed.
Mr. Perlmutter. No. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Woodall. Be happy to yield.
Mr. Perlmutter. We have at least five witnesses----
The Chairman. Mic.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Five witnesses that have
testified, two in the Judiciary Committee and three in the
Intelligence Committee called by the Republican minority. So
that is at least five witnesses; and the President was invited
to present a case, which he refused to do.
Mr. Woodall. I appreciate my friend raising that.
What you heard from the ranking member today is he was
given choices by the chairman, take it or leave it. You can
invite a law professor of your own choosing, but you cannot
invite a witness of your own choosing. You cannot bring the
fact witnesses, any fact witness, to this hearing. That is
what--that is what this section--and to the chairman's point--
--
Mr. Perlmutter. So if the gentleman would yield again, so
the gentleman is making a distinction between the examinations
and depositions that were taken in the Intelligence Committee
versus what was done in the Judiciary Committee. Is that how
the gentleman is proceeding?
Mr. Woodall. No. I would say to the gentleman, I am only
taking the rule on its face. Minority members on the committee
have the right to call witnesses of their own choosing. That
right was not offered or granted.
And it goes on to say the chair may set the day under a
reasonable schedule.
It could well be that the chairman is absolutely right, and
when we decided that the schedule must be reasonable, we
decided that scheduling the hearing after the bill has already
been passed and sent to the Senate was reasonable, but I don't
believe that we believe that. I believe every one of us knows
that is not what we intended. There are bills on which moving
and playing fast and loose may be appropriate. Impeaching the
President of the United States cannot, by any definition, be
one of those resolutions. Cannot be. Cannot be. The rule is
clear. The Rules Committee has the right to waive the rule.
To suggest that the rule has been satisfied, as the
chairman's letter does, I think creates a very dangerous
precedent that future chairmen are going to be much more
liberal with and much less enthusiastic about protecting
minority rights than the chairman would be.
The chair may set the day under a reasonable schedule. Is
the day after we have passed the bill reasonable? And that is
best-case scenario as we sit here today. The chairman has been
very indulgent. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. No, and I would just simply say I think you
are misinterpreting what the rule actually states, and we do
not agree and what we are doing here is standard operating
procedure, and we are going to follow that.
Mr. Woodall. To be fair, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to
misstate the rule. I am reading it out of the House Practice
manual.
The Chairman. And I answered you in a lengthy letter how--
based on precedent, and based on how it is interpreted. I mean,
the idea that somehow, if it worked the way the minority would
have us believe, as if it were some superpower allowing the
minority to call any witness at any time, to schedule a hearing
whenever they want to, to delay legislation, I promise you
there would have been a whole lot more hearings last Congress
called by Democrats.
And so we just disagree.
Mr. Woodall. Of course.
The Chairman. And so I--we can continue this if you would
like but I don't agree with your assumption.
Mr. Woodall. And I know that in this committee, as the
chairman, when you don't agree with me, that means I am going
to lose. I understand that.
The Chairman. You can ask for a vote, and you might win.
Mr. Woodall. And this is not--but, Mr. Chairman, this isn't
a rule of this committee. This is a rule of the United States
House.
The Chairman. Absolutely. And as far as I am--has the
parliamentarian informed you that there is a point of order to
be made?
Mr. Woodall. If the circumstances are as you believe they
are----
The Chairman. I am just asking you.
Mr. Woodall. When I raise that point of order on the floor
of the House, or a member the Judiciary Committee does, it will
be--it will be denied.
The Chairman. Right. But I am not exposing this bill to any
points of order, and I would urge my colleagues to vote no on
the Woodall amendment.
All those in favor of the Woodall amendment say aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it.
Dr. Burgess. Roll call.
Mr. Woodall. I am reluctant to put my friends on the record
on this issue, but I will.
The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. I am not reluctant to vote no.
No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings, no.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
Ms. Shalala?
Ms. Shalala. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
Mr. DeSaulnier?
Mr. DeSaulnier. No.
The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier, no.
Mr. Cole?
Mr. Cole. I am proud my friend overcame his scruples and
put everybody on the record. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
Mr. Burgess?
Dr. Burgess. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The clerk will report the total.
The Clerk. Four yeas, nine nays.
The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Before we vote on the final motion, I would like to yield
to the gentleman from Oklahoma for any concluding remarks he
would like to make.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to agree with my friend, Mr. DeSaulnier. This is a
sad day. I don't think anybody on this panel, Democrat or
Republican, came here with the expectation they would be voting
on impeachment for the President, and I think they all regret
that. I think we all regret that.
But I want to tell you, first, Mr. Chairman, I am very
proud of this committee. I am very proud that the discussions
have been civil and professional. I think the points have been
fair by all sides, and I think that is to the credit of this
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of you. I think you have
presided over this process which is a difficult one. It is one
where we clearly disagree. There was not much opportunity for
agreement to arrive, but you have given everybody an
opportunity to have their say. You have allowed every question
to be asked, every point to be made. You have made your
decisions. That is your prerogative as the chairman, and we
respect that prerogative. But I think you have done so in a
very fair and open and transparent manner. I am personally
very, very grateful.
I do think as a Congress, we are on an awfully dangerous
and awfully divisive course, and I have thought about this
quite a bit. I know all of us have. And I have been around this
business for a long time, and I have watched the last
impeachment process. I was not a Member of Congress, but I was
pretty closely associated with Congress at the time, and I
thought probably where we went wrong in that process is that I
don't think most of the Republicans members in the 1990s ever
really regarded President Clinton as a legitimately elected
President. I would caution my friends, I think you are making
precisely the same mistake now.
There is no question we can quibble about votes, but many,
many Members of Congress on your side have been trying to
impeach the President from the very first day. No question
about that. There was testimony about that.
And we are going to impeach a President in this case, if we
go ahead and we have the vote tomorrow, for something that
didn't happen. The dispute has been about aid to the Ukraine.
That aid was given, and it was withheld, at the most, for 55
days and was delivered within the time legally specified. That
is before the end of the fiscal year.
There were no investigations undertaken by the Ukraine in
exchange for that aid or in exchange for time at the White
House or a visit with the President. And both the principals
involved in the critical conversation, President Trump and
President Zelensky, all said everything was fine. No pressure
was intended, none was felt.
This process that we are engaged in, Mr. Chairman, is going
to fail. I mean, we will have a vote tomorrow. It may well
succeed. You occupy the majority here. I respect that. But we
are here because I think the Speaker did not follow the very
conditions she laid down at the beginning. She said we will not
go down the road of impeachment, unless it is bipartisan. This
is not bipartisan. We will not go down this road unless there
is a consensus in the country. There is no consensus in the
country. And we are precisely, or a little bit less than now,
11 months from an election where the American people can and
will make this decision.
But I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, on a little bit more
optimistic note. A lot of people would say that means Congress
is broken, and we focused, and I think the public will focus
mostly on this measure today but we ought to reflect a little
bit about what has happened this week and what has happened in
this committee that we saw last night.
We had a major bipartisan agreement on funding the
government for the balance of the year. It was a give-and-take
process. By the way, the President was pretty integral in that
process as well. So he has participated. We can't pass much if
he is not willing to sign it and he is not willing to
negotiate. He certainly did.
We are going to have major tax changes. Three major items
that fund the ACA were eliminated today. I am very, very
pleased with that. The President was involved in that.
We are going to have a tax extenders package that we all
stayed here a little bit late last night, later than any of us
wanted; but that is because the principals on all sides were
actually negotiating. So, that tells me that things are going
in a workable fashion.
And we are going to have a USMCA vote on Thursday that,
again, this committee was involved in, and I think will be
bipartisan.
So, while I am very disappointed about what is happening, I
don't think it is good for the country. I think my friend, Mr.
Collins, made some very, very good points about lowering the
bar for impeachment, and setting us up to engage in this again.
I am pleased to say that in a number of areas, we have been
awfully functional and I think in a very bipartisan manner.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is in part because of the manner in
which you have operated this process, a very divisive process,
but one, again, in which I think you have been open and fair
and transparent. We haven't agreed with all your decisions. You
had an opportunity tonight to accept two fantastic amendments,
but the reality is you allowed those amendments to be offered.
You treated them with respect and fairly.
And so for that, I extend my sincere appreciation, and we
look forward to seeing you on the floor tomorrow and appreciate
the manner in which you discharged your duties here in this
committee.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. And I want to thank the
gentleman from Oklahoma for his kinds words. And I want to
thank all the members of this committee, Democrats and
Republicans, and all the staff that have put in long hours
during this week. We have sat here all day, and conducted
ourselves in a very serious and thoughtful manner. I had a
number of people say to me that they were surprised that,
despite the difficult topic before us, that what they observed
play out on TV was relatively civil. And so, I am proud of this
committee, too. And we have strong disagreements over the
matter at hand. I think the President behaved in a way that is
reprehensible, quite frankly, and, yeah, he did--the aid did go
to Ukraine, but only after he got caught withholding it.
While this committee was meeting this afternoon, the
President of the United States sent the Speaker of the House a
letter on this impeachment process.
And, Ms. Lesko, earlier you asked unanimous consent to put
it in the record.
I am not sure how many of you read it but it is six pages
long, and it essentially amounts to one long Twitter rant. He
called impeachment an illegal coup, and he claims, quote,
``More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem
witch trials,'' end quote. I mean, are you kidding me? Innocent
people were tortured and hung. Their corpses were thrown in
shallow graves. An 80-year-old farmer named Giles Corey was
literally placed between boards and crushed to death.
For the President to say he is being treated worse than the
Salem witch trials is unhinged, just like so many of the
missives on impeachment.
I know a little bit about the Salem witch trials because I
am from Massachusetts. And here is a little more history about
Massachusetts. It was our forebearers who were killed in the
Boston Massacre, and who fired the shot heard round the world
at Lexington and Concord. It was our Commonwealth that stood up
to a tyrannical king and insisted that rights come from the
consent of the governed and not the whims of a monarch.
In his letter, the President even writes, and I quote, ``I
have no doubt that the American people will hold you and the
Democrats fully responsible in the 2020 election,'' end quote.
The President just doesn't get it. This is not about his
reelection. It is not about anyone's political future. Our
Founders handed us a fragile thing more than 200 years ago, an
experiment in self-government, a fledgling democracy, unlike
anything else on Earth at the time, a republic of, by, and for
the people.
So, this is about whether we, the people sent to Congress,
are willing to stand up and protect that fragile idea that has
been entrusted to all of us. We shaped this democracy day by
day, vote by vote. Some votes are more arcane than others, but
each and every one helps to decide the kind of country we are
going to be.
You know, voting on impeachment is particularly important.
It will define our democracy from here on out. Not a single
Republican today even hinted that what the President did was
wrong. It was wrong. It was wrong. And for me, I will leave
here today with a clear conscience.
I don't know if President Trump is watching right now. But
if he were, I would say to him, Mr. President, this is not
about you. This is about all of us, what kind of behavior we
are willing to tolerate from whoever sits in the Oval Office,
and whether we live up to the idea of a government of, by, and
for the people.
``A Republic, if you can keep it.'' I began this hearing by
quoting those famous words from Benjamin Franklin. No one
wanted to be here today. But I am proud when history called
upon us, we fought to keep the vision of our Founders alive in
our time. We fought to keep this Republic intact.
So, this has been a long day; and tomorrow promises to be a
long day. Even though we had disagreements in this committee,
as I said before, I am proud of each and every member of this
committee. I mean, we, I think, showed that you can actually
have difficult discussions and be civil and be serious. And I
think, no matter where we fall on this issue, I think that is
something we all should be proud of.
So, I thank everybody and the question is now on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
All those in favor will say aye. Aye. All those opposed,
no. No. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The
motion is agreed to.
Mr. Cole. We would ask for the yeas and nays.
The Chairman. The yeas and nays have been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hastings, aye.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, aye.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, aye.
Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Ms. Shalala?
Ms. Shalala. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, aye.
Mr. DeSaulnier?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier, aye.
Mr. Cole?
Mr. Cole. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cole, no.
Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, no.
Mr. Burgess?
Dr. Burgess. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, no.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, no.
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report the total
The Clerk. Nine yeas, four nays.
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Accordingly, I will manage this rule for the majority.
Mr. Cole. And I will manage it for the Republicans.
The Chairman. Again, I thank everybody.
And without objection----
Mr. Cole. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, we talk about
democracy and the Federal system. We ought to remember the year
before confederacy----
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. Before our brave----
The Chairman. I agree.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. Massachusetts that understood
something about democracy and federalism.
The Chairman. I agree with you.
Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]